Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 3/22/11 03:41 PM, WolvenBear wrote: There was no wrong committed.

When you misapply what my argument is about, yeah, there is. But I know, you obviously have an ego to protect

I don't. I got your point wrong. However, when we go back, if we replace my misunderstanding with your actual point...it still leaves you wrong. If we take out talking about the Jews, it still undermines you. Iraqis asked us to come in dozens of times. Afghanis begged for US support for decades.

Did they ask us to occupy their country? Did they ask us to tell them how to govern themselves? Did they ask us to prop up candidates and suggest as strongly as we could to elect them? The Iraqi's have actually several times asked us to leave since Saddam was toppled. Yet there we remain.

While I misunderstood your country, the results are the same. I got the country wrong, but the commentary is still correct.

Not really because the commentary ignores (at the least) the part where the Iraqi's asked America to leave their country. It also makes assumptions that the kind of help the Afghans and Iraqis asked for is the help they got, and that they're totally happy with the way things have gone for them since the US intervened.

Well, since you're trying to be nice, I will return the favor.

I appreciate that. I don't see why just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't be civil.

I fail to see how saying "both sides make mistakes" is a valid point.

Even if they're the same sorts of mistakes? Even if they violate the same sorts of laws?

Side A launches missiles from schools and hospitals, knowing that return fire will happen and kids or sick people will die.

Yet there are reports, and these are reports the aforementioned satanbrain even linked where UN investigation is saying there is NO evidence some of the schools fired upon by Israel were used in rocket or missile attacks.

The return fire and the initial fire are both the fault of Side A, not Side B.

Even if this "return fire" is not limited to hostile targets or installations of Side A?

Side A starts sending children with backpacks to blow up civilians. Side B, afer a few attacks starts shooting Arab children. Side A is responsible for every death on both sides that happens.

Again, even if the Arab children Side B is shooting present no threat or evidence of being bombers?

That's the problem with these narratives to me...it suggests that we can condemn Side A, but if Side B does THE SAME THING, somehow it's ok because Side A started it...it's ridiculous to condemn only one if the other engages in the same actions. Especially when it's clear we're not always talking about clear and definable acts of self defense.

The examples continue. If you do something bad, and I respond, both your action and my response are your fault.

But do we not put response into context with action. We do in the legal system. You can't punch me in the face, then I shoot you to death and be able to say "pure self defense, his fault".

Um, no it wouldn't. I'm sorry, that's nonsense.

How? The Articles of Confederation and the government it spawned were a massive failure for the 6 or 7 years they applied. Then we went back to the drawing board and drafted The Constitution. That's my point, even the most successful systems don't develop overnight.

I didn't realize the President would violate the law and commit to an illegal war. Imagine that, I based my views on the world on the law. Hmmm.

You still spoke far too soon on the matter, which is what I was getting at.

Yes, that's exactly who you are.

I really should have known that's what you were going to do with that statement.

---

At 3/22/11 11:32 AM, satanbrain wrote: Untill it is forgotten.

Speculation.

or making up new lies which is worse.

Slander, which is far worse then the above speculation.

You recognize the possibility it's true,

I do.

since it's true,

That's your bias talking again. There is no uniform independent agreement.

and assuming your sources would consider this important enough, they are deliberately hiding it.

Except the problem is your well established bias of "if the Israeli army says it, it's true" does not allow you to see anything that might contradict them as anything but a "lie". This is a position you have not substantiated with independent fact.

Gaza isn't part of israel.

True. Yet Israel is occupying it.

Judea and samaria is the west bank.

My apologies. I shall keep this in mind for the future that the terms are interchangeable.

Why is the israeli investigators are not independent?

Because they are part of the Israeli government, investigating matters on behalf of that government. They are clearly affiliated with one side of the dispute. It's like asking why I could consider Johnny Cochran an independent source for the guilt or innocence of OJ Simpson.

You need the legal system is corrupted nad never convict officials.

But I don't allege corruption. I just allege that there is a bias and the potential for such based on the idea of letting someone try their own case with only their own evidence. Also, why is it I have to prove things I'm not actually alleging, but you can call respected organizations liars and don't need to prove a thing?

You can be a citizen of a nation state without owning it's land.

How so?

The united states isn't ethnically nation state.

It's not, neither is Israel the last I checked. You aren't all the same race, ethnicity, or background. Jew's don't all share a common ethnicity, some of them are simply bonded by the fact that they are of the Jewish faith. This is in fact a recognized tenant of being a Jew. You can be born one, or you can convert and be one.

They have rights in the country since they are citizens, they have a right to identify themselves as they wish but that self-identification doesn't give them rights over the land.

So they are second class citizens because they aren't Jews is what you're saying. THAT is a supremacist argument.

They are citizens since they didn't run away and since they aren't forced to leave, the fact they are still here doesn't mean they were given any rights on the land.

It actually does, at least in terms of right to own property (which is what I'm talking about, equality of all rights, including right to own property in the state). That's not how someone necessarily becomes a citizen either, being a citizen, and becoming a citizen means more then what you're laying out here.

In previous wars more were killed when trying to kill the terrorists on ground.

Like which ones? Please give specific examples. Also I don't think these actions we're discussing were actually being classified as "war".

The "massive" attack is done always after the human shields were warned and anything was done to scare them off.

Do you know how someone gets a human shield or what they are? I have this really terrible sinking feeling you think human shields are always voluntary. Am I correct in thinking this is what you believe of human shields?

What surgical strike are you talking about that isn't the same as the attacks that were done?

In the US, when we have people holed up in a building with hostages and weaponry, we first attempt to get the hostages released peacefully and those holding them to surrender. If that fails, we have "sharp shooters" trained snipers that are usually positioned and wait to attempt to get a clear shot at the individual(s) in the building and by killing them, allow access to save hostages. This is what I mean by "surgical strikes", things that result in the lowest loss of life and least amount of property destruction.

Are you done?

No, because "often" does not mean "always". In this case, the means are definitely specified.

the land is.

Actually, from what I can find on Israeli property law, the land belongs to the government. But there seem to be no limits on leasing to citizens (by that I mean they don't seem to discriminate when it comes to legal citizens).

That's exactly what you were saying, they were exiled, and were robbed of their land, armed robbery.

Except when it comes to these situations it's not as simple as "armed robbery". That's why we invented words like "conquest" to try and explain the situation. They could have conquered it back, they didn't.

Is the palestinian nation not purely ethnic?

The definition of "nation" is not purely ethnic. Look it up again if you don't trust me.

The settlers are citizens since they have all the rights of a citizen, if you want to be a citizen of israel you need first to imigrate israel.

The problem is that when you settle elsewhere, and the land is not clearly Israel's, or if it winds up not belonging to Israel end of the day, they will have to go back anyway. To me at best it's as simple as Israel's defense: It's going to be ours anyway in the settlement, we're just developing early. At worst, it's them trying to extend borders now so when they sit at the table they can say they need to get that land so as not to uproot families and displace people.

Allowed in the past and still never abandon the jewish nation right on israel.

Did they stop? Seems to me they still do it. I actually heard the Israeli ambassador the other day say to an American talk show host (Bill Maher) that because his mother is Jewish, he could claim to be Jewish if he wanted. I'm just pointing out they're not exclusively Jewish in their citizen makeup and that should be recognized and respected.

Was it done not on purely ethnic lines in 1848-1849?

Glorifying of terrrorist prisoners., more glorification. isn't that admission of their crimes?

There's PALwatch again...think you could find me something a little more officially Palestinian that says this? That would make me more comfortable with acceptance.

Are you saying they never convicted someone of high-rank?

I'm saying I feel better with more then one side investigating.

Since they proved to be independent before.

How are they independent if they're contracted by an involved government?

Can you prove they have no ties? Can you prove they ignore the terrorist-supporters "humanitarian" organizations (which they clearly aren't)?

Can you prove these organizations support terrorists? Because when you've tried in the past you actually proved they DO look at both sides, and they DO condemn Palestine for crimes and violations. Get off it.

do we let the prosecutor present his case, say his client is innocent and then trust him?

Prosecuters don't have "clients" way to show you don't understand how court works.

We do, the UN doesn't.

Slander you've failed to prove over and over.

But they can. That is my point.

How?

How the olympic simming pool was built? How were the malls built?

That's not rebuilding a damaged school. That's what I'm asking for. We are talking about specific installations, with a specific purpose, being damaged, the UN claiming they aren't being rebuilt, and you claiming the opposite. I ask you to prove the claim they were rebuilt, and you talk about swimming pools. Fail.

I was reffering to the american-zionist conspiracy every humanitarian know of.

Fairy tales.

---

At 3/22/11 05:50 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: When you misapply what my argument is about, yeah, there is. But I know, you obviously have an ego to protect

Is that what it is? Man, I wish I knew I had an ego to protect the HUNDREDS of times I have apologized in the past on this board alone. It COULDN'T possibly be that your argument was little different than I understood with only the country being wrong. It COULDN'T be.

Cause your argument couldn't have any flaws period. Guffaw!

Did they ask us to occupy their country? Did they ask us to tell them how to govern themselves? Did they ask us to prop up candidates and suggest as strongly as we could to elect them? The Iraqi's have actually several times asked us to leave since Saddam was toppled. Yet there we remain.

That's a different point altogether and you know it.

First your claim was that we were unwanted invaders. Now that you have a substantial claim to the contrary, you try to say that we refuse to leave when asked. Even if the latter point is valid, it doesn't validate the former. And I think you know that. Shifting the goalposts and all.

Not really because the commentary ignores (at the least) the part where the Iraqi's asked America to leave their country. It also makes assumptions that the kind of help the Afghans and Iraqis asked for is the help they got, and that they're totally happy with the way things have gone for them since the US intervened.

My commentary doesn't even touch on that. And neither did your commentary. As such, you're being dishonest.

Even if they're the same sorts of mistakes? Even if they violate the same sorts of laws?

But they don't. As I prove below.

Yet there are reports, and these are reports the aforementioned satanbrain even linked where UN investigation is saying there is NO evidence some of the schools fired upon by Israel were used in rocket or missile attacks.

So what? Who really cares?

The Palestinians have a HABIT of firing from schools and hospitals. If Israel hits the wrong school, or gets one wrong completely...that doesn't change the fact that they wouldn't be bombing schools to begin with if it wasn't Palestinian policy to fire from them. It's damn near a case of Pavlov's dog.

Even if this "return fire" is not limited to hostile targets or installations of Side A?

Yes. If Side A has a history of doing what side B expects...then Side A is still at fault.

Again, even if the Arab children Side B is shooting present no threat or evidence of being bombers?

YES. Dude, you base your worldview on past behavior. The FIRST time a little kid blows up in a plaza, you start looking for that. After the hundreth time in a year, you expect it as a matter of rote.

Of course side A is to blame.

That's the problem with these narratives to me...it suggests that we can condemn Side A, but if Side B does THE SAME THING, somehow it's ok because Side A started it...it's ridiculous to condemn only one if the other engages in the same actions. Especially when it's clear we're not always talking about clear and definable acts of self defense.

But do we not put response into context with action. We do in the legal system. You can't punch me in the face, then I shoot you to death and be able to say "pure self defense, his fault".

In certain circumstances, you actually can. If I am registered as a lethal weapon (boxer, military, martial arts, etc), a gun is absolutely a valid counter to fists. Yet, how is this equivalent? It pretends that one side is just causing minor harm, and that the other side is retaliating in nuclear weapons. Bombs to bombs is equivalent.

How? The Articles of Confederation and the government it spawned were a massive failure for the 6 or 7 years they applied. Then we went back to the drawing board and drafted The Constitution. That's my point, even the most successful systems don't develop overnight.

The Articles of Confederation aren't equivalent. The only real issue the founders changed was interstate commerce. Comparing a serious change in a working system to a full force failure is silly.

You still spoke far too soon on the matter, which is what I was getting at.

I based my statement on what the President could legally do. He broke the law.

I could go into more detail about how I am still right, since we are still not "in there", and the President says we never will be, but what's the point?

I really should have known that's what you were going to do with that statement.

Damn logic! Causing me to speak truth!

---

At 3/22/11 05:29 PM, bcdemon wrote: Well, considering they (Hamas) mostly use unguided rockets (Qassam), I would say they sort of fire in a general direction knowing it will go about that far, and hope for the best. Unlike the IDF who possess the most sophisticated and accurate missiles/rockets on the planet, and can hit their target with pin-point accuracy.

That's terrible logic. So because Hamas fires and misses that means Israel is not justified in retaliating? If I were to throw a punch at you for no reason, and miss, wouldn't you have every right to attack me? It makes no difference whether or not Hamas is accurate or not; the fact is that they are attacking.

Because as "the only democratic country in the middle east" we sort of expect Israel to uphold international laws. Especially considering it was the international community that let you be a part of the "world". If the vote had gone the other way, there would be no Israel today. So asking Israel to abide by said rules doesn't seem that big of a request.
Hamas on the hand is a known terrorist group. It's also "known" that terrorist groups don't abide by international laws. That and the international community and the UN have on numerous occasions condemned Hamas actions, just like they have Israels.

So we should just accept that Hamas does that, simply because it's a terrorist organization? Yes, Israel is bound to uphold international laws, but so should Hamas. It's not fair to tell Israel to uphold UN laws and then exempt Hamas because "it's not known to abide by international laws,"

---

Israel gets blamed for defending itself every time they are threatened. Yet, we invade any country who gives us an odd look and are seen as heroes.

I've given up on common sense.

---

At 3/23/11 04:38 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Is that what it is? Man, I wish I knew I had an ego to protect the HUNDREDS of times I have apologized in the past on this board alone. It COULDN'T possibly be that your argument was little different than I understood with only the country being wrong. It COULDN'T be.

I must have missed those between all the times you were insulting people.

Cause your argument couldn't have any flaws period. Guffaw!

Oh, it could, I just don't believe it does. We're not acting in a military way within Israel or Palestine last I checked, we are in the other two.

That's a different point altogether and you know it.

How is that a different point? Your point is they asked us to come in and seemed to be acting like we're just doing what the people want. I'm pointing out that even if that were true at the beginning of both wars, it has changed from being that as time went on. I also fail to see how our continued occupation can't be related back to the occupation that Israel is doing in Gaza, even though our occupation is less restrictive and less about having direct and active control of the nation.

First your claim was that we were unwanted invaders. Now that you have a substantial claim to the contrary, you try to say that we refuse to leave when asked. Even if the latter point is valid, it doesn't validate the former. And I think you know that. Shifting the goalposts and all.

Not exactly. Because my honest understanding of the situation was we were not wanted invaders. This backed up by the fact that (at least in the case of Iraq) we toppled Saddam and were asked to leave shortly thereafter (I'm sure if you look you can find some articles, there's not really an "if" on that one being correct). It's possible I misunderstood the situation and was not as informed there as I thought. I mean, certainly I don't recall The Bush Administration using the idea that we were asked to topple those regimes when they were selling the wars (which were based off many shifting reasons, Iraq especially). Could be I made a bit of a an argument from ignorance on the first point, think I'll take a little time after this post to look that up so if I need to apologize for said ignorance, I can do so.

But they don't. As I prove below.

Ok.

So what? Who really cares?

This is not proof of anything. International Law cares. This is an argument from "I don't give a damn unless it effects me". Who cares is the laziest argument possible here, especially if you're going to then turn around and complain about terrorists ending innocent lives. Who cares about those either right?

The Palestinians have a HABIT of firing from schools and hospitals.

They do, but that doesn't mean you can hit ANY school or hospital just because Palestinian terrorists like using them for a base.

If Israel hits the wrong school, or gets one wrong completely...that doesn't change the fact that they wouldn't be bombing schools to begin with if it wasn't Palestinian policy to fire from them.

So...since Palestine sometimes uses them as a base...they can hit anyone they want on the off chance Palestine might be using it, or use it in the future. Who cares if innocent life gets lost? You're a cold bastard.

It's damn near a case of Pavlov's dog.

Not in the least is it a case of Pavlov's dog. I don't understand how you arrive at that analogy at all.

Yes. If Side A has a history of doing what side B expects...then Side A is still at fault.

What the hell kind of law have you read? Because I've never heard that backed up by any legal, or ethical standpoint whatsoever.

YES. Dude, you base your worldview on past behavior. The FIRST time a little kid blows up in a plaza, you start looking for that. After the hundreth time in a year, you expect it as a matter of rote.

So your argument is that they can just start killing Palestinian children on sight because they MIGHT be bombers...that's what you seem to be arguing. Your saying "because it's happened before, it's ok to just start opening fire and basically commit genocide".

But do we not put response into context with action.

Huh? We do that all the time in an ethical or moral debate! Legal ones too.

We do in the legal system.

International law, the Geneva convention, all these other things are not part of a "legal system" now?

In certain circumstances, you actually can. If I am registered as a lethal weapon (boxer, military, martial arts, etc), a gun is absolutely a valid counter to fists.

Actually, martial artists do that as a gimmick. They aren't required to, nor considered deadly weapons. It's a myth.

Yet, how is this equivalent? It pretends that one side is just causing minor harm, and that the other side is retaliating in nuclear weapons. Bombs to bombs is equivalent.

The other problem here is one side has agreed to bind itself to a certain set of laws and conduct of behavior. The other didn't. If Israel wants to retain the "moral high ground" they cannot employ the tactics of Hamas. But it's not even moral high ground, it's also the legal high ground as well. Since again, they volunteered to be bound to rules the terrorists didn't.

The Articles of Confederation aren't equivalent. The only real issue the founders changed was interstate commerce. Comparing a serious change in a working system to a full force failure is silly.

"The Articles envisioned a permanent confederation, but granted to the Congress-the only federal institution-little power to finance itself or to ensure that its resolutions were enforced. There was no president and no national court. The Articles of Confederation were weak and did not give a strong political or economic base for the newly formed nation.[17]

Although historians generally agree that the Articles were too weak to hold the fast-growing nation together, they do give credit to the settlement of the western issue, as the states voluntarily turned over their lands to national control."

Looks like they had to change a lot more then just "interstate commerce" and that they actually were a pretty big failure as I said.

I based my statement on what the President could legally do. He broke the law.

No no, not that. Apologies that I was not clear enough, we actually agree on that, since every reading of the situation I've made bears out the point pretty clearly that he did break the law. No, what I meant was about us attacking Libya, or even that the military government of Egypt was not going to relinquish power or any of that. I can understand having a strong opinion (especially a cynical one, I myself tend to be on the side of 'whatever can go wrong, most likely will go wrong'), but it seems to me you're argument was "it'll fail, the end" or "we are just going to talk about attack, the end". All I was pointing out is that, sure, you may be 100% correct, but it's too early to say just yet. Did I clear it up sufficiently?

I could go into more detail about how I am still right, since we are still not "in there", and the President says we never will be, but what's the point?

We're dropping bombs, we don't have a ground force sure...but it's splitting hairs semantics to me, we are military committedm I imagine Obama will do some semantics of his own to justify (no ground troops, no declaration of war, a few I probably haven't even begun to think of)

Damn logic! Causing me to speak truth!

Well, at least what you believe to be the truth :)

---

At 3/23/11 06:34 PM, Hybridization wrote: Israel gets blamed for defending itself every time they are threatened. Yet, we invade any country who gives us an odd look and are seen as heroes.

I've given up on common sense.

Oh please, spare me that crap

here is a list of the Ethnic Cleansing operations carried out by Zionist forces BEFORE any Arab army 'attacked' Israel.

Between December 1947 - May 15, 1948
Operation Ben-Ami
Operation Mishmar Ha-Emek
Operation Chametz (Hebrew for Sour)
Operation Barak
Operation Nachshon
Operation Har'el
Operation Maccabi
Operation Yevussi
Operation Shfiffon (Hebrew for Pseudocerastes, i.e. Viper snake)
Operation Pitchfork

See this link for more...

---

At 3/23/11 11:11 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I must have missed those between all the times you were insulting people.

You're now being dishonest. I have repeatedly said i got things wrong in the past. Trying to conflate that with me calling people liars or stupid is trying to AGAIN shift the goalposts.

It seems the current stand is that if I ever insulted anyone, I am not sincere when I admit error? This is a standard you yourself would not meet.

How is that a different point? Your point is they asked us to come in and seemed to be acting like we're just doing what the people want. I'm pointing out that even if that were true at the beginning of both wars, it has changed from being that as time went on. I also fail to see how our continued occupation can't be related back to the occupation that Israel is doing in Gaza, even though our occupation is less restrictive and less about having direct and active control of the nation.

So wait. After calling me a liar, you are now lying. Your original claim was that we weren't wanted originally. To prove that, you point to the fact that we have been asked to leave.

There's no way to rationally debate you, as you will lie and twist and spin and distort to whatever end it is you want to argue.

---

At 3/23/11 06:29 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 3/22/11 05:29 PM, bcdemon wrote: Well, considering they (Hamas) mostly use unguided rockets (Qassam), I would say they sort of fire in a general direction knowing it will go about that far, and hope for the best. Unlike the IDF who possess the most sophisticated and accurate missiles/rockets on the planet, and can hit their target with pin-point accuracy.

That's terrible logic. So because Hamas fires and misses that means Israel is not justified in retaliating? If I were to throw a punch at you for no reason, and miss, wouldn't you have every right to attack me? It makes no difference whether or not Hamas is accurate or not; the fact is that they are attacking.

No no, you misread what I posted. You accused Hamas of "intentionally attacking civilians" , yet they have no way of guiding that rocket to a civilian location. They shoot and hope for the best. Now the IDF on the other hand (who apparently doesn't intentionally attack civilians), can land a rocket within a foot of its desired location.
So technically, Hamas could be firing on military installations and missing, the same way the IDF does. Don't all Israeli settlements/towns have IDF installations?

Because as "the only democratic country in the middle east" we sort of expect Israel to uphold international laws. Especially considering it was the international community that let you be a part of the "world". If the vote had gone the other way, there would be no Israel today. So asking Israel to abide by said rules doesn't seem that big of a request.
Hamas on the hand is a known terrorist group. It's also "known" that terrorist groups don't abide by international laws. That and the international community and the UN have on numerous occasions condemned Hamas actions, just like they have Israels.

So we should just accept that Hamas does that, simply because it's a terrorist organization? Yes, Israel is bound to uphold international laws, but so should Hamas. It's not fair to tell Israel to uphold UN laws and then exempt Hamas because "it's not known to abide by international laws,"

The funny thing, Israel and Hamas get into the same amount of trouble when they kill innocent civilians. NONE
The militant wing of Hamas doesn't recognize international laws and the IDF gets bailed out by the USA every single time.

So you see, where I bitch about the USA bailing out Israel, you bitch about Hamas ignoring international laws. Same shit different color.

---

At 3/22/11 10:15 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Speculation.

that's what they are doing with other news, hid them untill they are forgotten and they claim it's the army's invention.

Except the problem is your well established bias of "if the Israeli army says it, it's true" does not allow you to see anything that might contradict them as anything but a "lie". This is a position you have not substantiated with independent fact.

you regard everything which our sources are hiding and other are not as the army's lie.

True. Yet Israel is occupying it.

If they're occupying it how is that there are still rockets shot on israel?

Because they are part of the Israeli government,

Are they?

investigating matters on behalf of that government.

Can you prove they never convicted anyone?

But I don't allege corruption.

Yes you are, you said you don't trust them since they are curropted and will do as the government tells them to do despite what they find.

I just allege that there is a bias and the potential for such based on the idea of letting someone try their own case with only their own evidence.

Except that they see all the evidence.

Also, why is it I have to prove things I'm not actually alleging, but you can call respected organizations liars and don't need to prove a thing?

Since they are ignore terrorist attacks? Because they claim that terrorists are innocents?

How so?

It is so in israel.

You aren't all the same race, ethnicity, or background. Jew's don't all share a common ethnicity,

Genetic research prove otherwise.

some of them are simply bonded by the fact that they are of the Jewish faith.

a very small part. there are jews from soviet russia who were granted citizenship even though they
didn't keep jewish customs or culture.

Like which ones?

The ones done almost every day.

Do you know how someone gets a human shield or what they are?

Grab it, it's not that hard to understand.

I have this really terrible sinking feeling you think human shields are always voluntary.

Even if they aren't there's still no other way to kill the terrorist and eliminate the threat.

In the US, when we have people holed up in a building with hostages and weaponry, we first attempt to get the hostages released peacefully and those holding them to surrender.

So the idf tries to warn them and then scare them by fake missle.

If that fails, we have "sharp shooters" trained snipers that are usually positioned and wait to attempt to get a clear shot at the individual(s)

When they're shooting you don't wait to be killed. You don't pointlessy position snipers who will be shoot before they have a chance to do anything.

Except when it comes to these situations it's not as simple as "armed robbery".

It's very simple, you refuse to acknowledge it since it means the land is jewish and not universal.

The problem is that when you settle elsewhere, and the land is not clearly Israel's,

Which is not the case so there's no problem.

To me at best it's as simple as Israel's defense: It's going to be ours anyway in the settlement, we're just developing early.

It is already ours.

There's PALwatch again...think you could find me something a little more officially Palestinian that says this? That would make me more comfortable with acceptance.

I could show you how your biased sources are hiding this, no more.

How are they independent if they're contracted by an involved government?

If someone is convicted it would be the previous government, not this. It would be easier for this government to blame it all on the previous than making a real investigation.

How?

How they can have military power? Move what they have in one place to another.

That's not rebuilding a damaged school. That's what I'm asking for. We are talking about specific installations, with a specific purpose, being damaged, the UN claiming they aren't being rebuilt,

The UN based it's claims on terrorists' testimonies.

---

Woman killed, dozens hurt in Jerusalem bombing

---

At 3/24/11 11:13 AM, satanbrain wrote: Woman killed, dozens hurt in Jerusalem bombing

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Articl e.aspx?id=213442

---

At 3/24/11 11:11 AM, bcdemon wrote: So technically, Hamas could be firing on military installations and missing, the same way the IDF does. Don't all Israeli settlements/towns have IDF installations?

holy nutbars Batman.

---

At 3/24/11 11:48 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 3/24/11 11:11 AM, bcdemon wrote: So technically, Hamas could be firing on military installations and missing, the same way the IDF does. Don't all Israeli settlements/towns have IDF installations?

holy nutbars Batman.

There is a IDF Navy base in Ashdod and the Palmachim I.D.F air force base just north of Ashdod.
Can you prove they weren't trying to hit those bases?

Israeli settlers hold a "Day of Rage", interesting read.
Israeli settlers running over kids? Really??

Another uneven tid-bit:
All Palestinian buildings built without Israeli approval is deemed illegal by Israel, and so it gets demolished.
Israeli settlements built outside the UN declared border are deemed illegal by UN and Geneva Convention laws, yet these are deemed legal by Israel and left untouched.

---

At 3/24/11 01:17 PM, bcdemon wrote: Another uneven tid-bit:
All Palestinian buildings built without Israeli approval is deemed illegal by Israel, and so it gets demolished.

Maybe because it's israel's territory?

Israeli settlements built outside the UN declared border are deemed illegal by UN and Geneva Convention laws, yet these are deemed legal by Israel and left untouched.

Since they are built on israeli land.

---

At 3/24/11 02:53 PM, satanbrain wrote: Maybe because it's israel's territory?
Since they are built on israeli land.

You're right, Israel owns everything, what was I thinking......

---

At 3/24/11 01:17 PM, bcdemon wrote: There is a IDF Navy base in Ashdod and the Palmachim I.D.F air force base just north of Ashdod.
Can you prove they weren't trying to hit those bases?

yay for proving negatives!

Israeli settlers hold a "Day of Rage", interesting read.
Israeli settlers running over kids? Really??

awesome, so as in Palestine, there are things that fall beyond the scope of government, irrelevant of what the government wants.

---

At 3/24/11 11:11 AM, bcdemon wrote: No no, you misread what I posted. You accused Hamas of "intentionally attacking civilians" , yet they have no way of guiding that rocket to a civilian location. They shoot and hope for the best. Now the IDF on the other hand (who apparently doesn't intentionally attack civilians), can land a rocket within a foot of its desired location.

So? That doesn't matter. Hamas doesn't care whether or not it hits a hospital or synagogue. The fact is that they are shooting rockets indiscriminately into Israel. In fact, the notion that a crazy extremist dictatorship has uncontrollable missiles should make anyone cringe, especially the Palestinians. That Qassam missile could easily hit a mosque in Gaza if they're out of control.

The funny thing, Israel and Hamas get into the same amount of trouble when they kill innocent civilians. NONE
The militant wing of Hamas doesn't recognize international laws and the IDF gets bailed out by the USA every single time.

That's right, the USA bails out Israel every single time. Then explain the international outrage over the flotilla incident. Even US news stations got on the bandwagon before checking the facts, decrying the evils of the IDF on the flotilla brigade.

And if Hamas doesn't recognize international laws then how can it claim to be veritable representative of the Palestinian people if it is not willing to follow rules on the world stage? Simply saying "well I don't believe in those rules" is no excuse.

---

At 3/24/11 01:17 PM, bcdemon wrote: Israeli settlements built outside the UN declared border are deemed illegal by UN and Geneva Convention laws, yet these are deemed legal by Israel and left untouched.

At 3/24/11 02:53 PM, satanbrain wrote:

Since they are built on israeli land.

By the UN declared border, do you mean the border set in 1947, or 1949? I have no problem with Israel building in the 1949 borders, or the Golan Heights, or East Jerusalem. But no setttlements in the West Bank or Gaza. It's stupid, unsafe, and hinders the peace process.

In any peace Israel should retain its current borders and the Golan, while the Palestinians should have the West Bank and Gaza. Jerusalem should either be under Israeli control or a UN international city.

---

At 3/24/11 04:01 AM, WolvenBear wrote: It seems the current stand is that if I ever insulted anyone, I am not sincere when I admit error?

I'm saying I don't really see it. Even when it happened here it came complete with a defense of how you didn't actually make an error.

So wait. After calling me a liar, you are now lying.

I don't remember directly calling you a liar.

Your original claim was that we weren't wanted originally. To prove that, you point to the fact that we have been asked to leave.

I'm pointing to the fact that we aren't wanted now, and that I may have been mistaken when I asserted we weren't wanted originally. I also said that when these invasions which led to war were pitched to us they didn't include "we were asked to step in" anywhere in the sales pitch. So to my understanding, it looks like we decided to go to war because we felt the need and justification. Then when the operation was over and the government toppled, the Iraqi's asked us to leave and we're still there. This says to me that we weren't honestly there to simply help them to begin with. That's my point.

There's no way to rationally debate you, as you will lie and twist and spin and distort to whatever end it is you want to argue.

I get the same feeling from you right about now. As I thought I was making my points clear (though I see some typos and mis-usages now that make me face palm since it changes what I actually meant).

---

At 3/24/11 11:12 AM, satanbrain wrote: that's what they are doing with other news, hid them untill they are forgotten and they claim it's the army's invention.

Answering speculation with more speculation and slight slander isn't helpful.

you regard everything which our sources are hiding and other are not as the army's lie.

I'm not saying the army is lying necessarily. For all I know they are telling the truth as they believe it to be. But just because you're telling the truth from your perspective, doesn't mean it's the absolute truth. Ever hear of an "honest mistake"?

If they're occupying it how is that there are still rockets shot on israel?

Occupation does not mean that everything is under control. Look at the American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. No matter how good the security, there's always holes.

Are they?

You said they were. That's what we're discussing.

Can you prove they never convicted anyone?

Just because they've convicted some people doesn't mean they're unimpeachable. Judges convict people all the time, not all the convictions are right. We also see all the time in politics where someone voluntarily takes the fall for something to protect his bosses. Convictions do not mean we can 100% trust the investigators or their methods.

Yes you are, you said you don't trust them since they are curropted and will do as the government tells them to do despite what they find.

I didn't say that. I said the potential is greater for that then with an independent force. I'd be saying the same thing about ANY similar entity of ANY government.

Except that they see all the evidence.

They seem to be missing, or rewriting quite a bit of it...or maybe that's just the impression I'm getting because you so obviously do so.

Since they are ignore terrorist attacks? Because they claim that terrorists are innocents?

Prove it. Because the links you've provided so far from them or about them that you alleged prove your point actually prove the OPPOSITE.

It is so in israel.

This is true. I actually found that out AFTER I typed that. So my apologies for my ignorance on that point.

Genetic research prove otherwise.

Really? Because you've only linked that once or twice and it's actually faulty. Hell, just the fact that someone can CONVERT to Judaism proves it faulty.

a very small part.

It's enough to prove what you said above that all Jews are "genetically similar" is false. That's all I was driving at.

The ones done almost every day.

Last I checked, Israel is not perpetually at war. Dealing with an attack by a terrorist is not the same as conducting war time operations.

Grab it, it's not that hard to understand.

Ok, so what I was driving at is that the human shield is most likely not complicit with the person using them. So why should someone lose their right to life, which you have argued is so sacred, simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Even if they aren't there's still no other way to kill the terrorist and eliminate the threat.

Are you really sure about that? You can't try to negotiate, you can't try to get a clear shot on the terrorist by having someone positioned out of their site line. Because American police can do this, they do it quite a bit actually. I have a hard time believing the IDF is less capable then American police, I find it pretty nigh impossible actually.

So the idf tries to warn them and then scare them by fake missle.

That's the best they can do? Especially since as I typed above american police use way more effective methods? It just doesn't add up for me because I can't believe the military of a nation like Israel is less competent then American cops. Especially considering the threats they deal with, I think you aren't giving them enough credit.

When they're shooting you don't wait to be killed. You don't pointlessy position snipers who will be shoot before they have a chance to do anything.

Do you know what a sniper does? Or what the point of one is?

It's very simple, you refuse to acknowledge it since it means the land is jewish and not universal.

We're arguing in circles. With your permission, I'd like to table this point since it's boiled down to just a sophisticated game of "nuh uh" vs. "ya huh"

Which is not the case so there's no problem.

Dude, even ISRAEL admits they can't claim all the land you say they can claim. They even admit there's a dispute and a problem. How much more clearer can it be?

It is already ours.

You should talk to your ambassador (I believe he's your ambassador to the UN) then. He was on Bill Maher the other night and he claimed that was the position of Israel. I'm quoting from a source that I felt confident could be considered "in the know" on this.

I could show you how your biased sources are hiding this, no more.

I look at that, and I used the wrong word, since I've been bitching against "official" sources so much. Basically, can you show me something that isn't the Jewish equivalent of FOX News.

If someone is convicted it would be the previous government, not this. It would be easier for this government to blame it all on the previous than making a real investigation.

You're talking about administrations, not governments. It's still the same government system, just different people running it (potentially) the problem is these accusations tend to be made before the involved administration is gone, and then that administration investigates. That's my point, how can you be 100% sure that the accused administration can investigate itself completely above board?

How they can have military power? Move what they have in one place to another.

It's not as simple as that. You can't just "move them" without changing the mandate, getting the involved parties to agree...etc. The UN can't do things just because they feel like it, there's a lot more to it then that, voting, debating, crap like that.

The UN based it's claims on terrorists' testimonies.

Prove it. Show me a SOURCE that says the schools the UN claims weren't rebuilt, are rebuilt. I keep asking for this, and you keep dodging it and changing the subject. So that leads me to believe you have no source and you've just pulled the claim out of your ass. But I'm open to being proven wrong.

---

At 3/24/11 11:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'm not saying the army is lying necessarily. For all I know they are telling the truth as they believe it to be.

As it is and terrorists are masking it with their liews.

But just because you're telling the truth from your perspective, doesn't mean it's the absolute truth.

Like your sources are lying and are not absolute truth?

Occupation does not mean that everything is under control.

Then what does it mean? What's the point of it? What does it gain?

You said they were. That's what we're discussing.

I didn't say they were part of the government.

Convictions do not mean we can 100% trust the investigators or their methods.

Like the UN courts is not trustable even if they convict some people?

They seem to be missing, or rewriting quite a bit of it...

Because they see the truth everyday and not getting it from some biased source?

Prove it. Because the links you've provided so far from them or about them that you alleged prove your point actually prove the OPPOSITE.

The UN search bar failed to prove they're reffering to terrorist attacks, it's the lack of reference that provea my point.

Really? Because you've only linked that once or twice and it's actually faulty.

Yes really.

Ok, so what I was driving at is that the human shield is most likely not complicit with the person using them. So why should someone lose their right to life, which you have argued is so sacred, simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Why would the terrorist be spared and his victims killed? After everything was done to not harm the human shield and it failed, there's no reason not to kill the terrorist at the expense of the human shield's life.

Are you really sure about that? You can't try to negotiate,

8 years of negotiations failed, even when all of judea and samaria were offered and part of east jerusalem.

you can't try to get a clear shot on the terrorist by having someone positioned out of their site line.

No, there are terrorists all over the place and it's built.

Because American police can do this,

Can they do that in gaza?

Especially considering the threats they deal with, I think you aren't giving them enough credit.

When there are dozens of terrorists holding human shields it's hard even to not harm one human shield.

Do you know what a sniper does? Or what the point of one is?

It can't do that in a built up area like gaza. This will certainly kill the human shield.

Basically, can you show me something that isn't the Jewish equivalent of FOX News.

You cam show me something which isn't the english version of Hamas Tv.

That's my point, how can you be 100% sure that the accused administration can investigate itself completely above board?

How do you know the administration itself is accused?

Prove it. Show me a SOURCE that says the schools the UN claims weren't rebuilt, are rebuilt. I keep asking for this, and you keep dodging it and changing the subject. So that leads me to believe you have no source and you've just pulled the claim out of your ass. But I'm open to being proven wrong.

"The GoI has committed to prioritising and fast-tracking the construction/ reconstruction of a number of schools and health clinics in Area C from the lists submitted by the OQR and SEMEP. Permits will be issued after formal submission of PA requests and plans."
Unless tony blair is now working for Fox news.

---

At 3/24/11 11:18 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'm saying I don't really see it. Even when it happened here it came complete with a defense of how you didn't actually make an error.

Gotcha. So if the time that I make a minor error with you that I defend the underlying point, I have never admitted error?

Even ignoring the conceit implied in that, that your ONE experience is all that matters, this is a logical fallacy. Something along the lines of "since I have never seen it, it has never happened."

So wait. After calling me a liar, you are now lying.

I'm pointing to the fact that we aren't wanted now, and that I may have been mistaken when I asserted we weren't wanted originally. I also said that when these invasions which led to war were pitched to us they didn't include "we were asked to step in" anywhere in the sales pitch. So to my understanding, it looks like we decided to go to war because we felt the need and justification. Then when the operation was over and the government toppled, the Iraqi's asked us to leave and we're still there. This says to me that we weren't honestly there to simply help them to begin with. That's my point.

Except that we were going in to help the Iraqis WAS a selling point of the original plan. Same with Afghanistan. We have a different administration, and it's been a decade. Trying to claim that our actions today somehow make us comic book villians for going in in the first place is...bizarre. Even if we grant the today part of your argument, the yesterday part does not follow.

I get the same feeling from you right about now. As I thought I was making my points clear (though I see some typos and mis-usages now that make me face palm since it changes what I actually meant).

I don't really care about typos. If you type teh instead of the, I'm not going to call you on it. It's not that you haven't made your point, or that typos and grammar errors have made me misunderstand.

It's simply that you're wrong. And that when someone points out the massive, glaring errors in your argument, you simply shift the goals. "We WERE wanted in the beginning." But we aren't wanted now! "But that doesn't affect my statement." Sure it does. They want us to leave and we won't, so we were evil when we went in! "Um, wait...what?"

---

At 3/24/11 09:09 PM, Ranger2 wrote: And if Hamas doesn't recognize international laws then how can it claim to be veritable representative of the Palestinian people if it is not willing to follow rules on the world stage? Simply saying "well I don't believe in those rules" is no excuse.

Bill Clinton signed onto the ICC (International Criminal Court) on the last day possible. Then Bush removed the USA signature when he wanted to invade Iraq. In fact, USA, Israel and Sudan are the only countries to have signed the agreement, then later withdrew their signatures, probably for fear of persecution.
So yes, apparently, you can ignore the rules because you don't like them.

And as stated before, when it comes to UN rules, well Israel doesn't have to worry about those ones, they get a free pass from the USA.

---

At 3/25/11 04:41 PM, bcdemon wrote: And as stated before, when it comes to UN rules, well Israel doesn't have to worry about those ones, they get a free pass from the USA.

Explain this! Sources?

---

Just to add to the discussion, this is what I think Israel should look like in a peace agreement. What do you think?
I used MS paint to shade in blue the land I think Israel should have sovereignty over.

---

At 3/25/11 01:08 AM, satanbrain wrote: As it is and terrorists are masking it with their liews.

Proof is fun.

Like your sources are lying and are not absolute truth?

Remember when I said some of my claims come from sources YOU linked that prove your claims false? No? Thought not.

Then what does it mean? What's the point of it? What does it gain?

Let's go to the dictionary, then I'll try to offer my personal understanding of it:

"the seizure and control of an area by military forces, especially foreign territory."

That's the definition we need to use for the word in this case. As for what it does or the point? Depends on the aims or goals of the occupying force. But what we can say is universally true is if you're occupying a territory you're attempting to forcibly bring it into some kind of relationship, or compliance, with your aims and goals. Right now the US is occupying both Iraq and Afghanistan in the hopes of turning them into friendly democratic nations which might in future aid them. This has not run smoothly however as there are factions within both nations that are resisting them. Israel seems to be doing similar with Gaza, they are occupying and have formed the blockade in the hope of controlling the territory obviously for their own benefit. This certainly is something that people that aren't Israel have a problem with.

I didn't say they were part of the government.

Then what the fuck has your argument been? Because all I'VE been doing is questioning how much we can trust investigators contracted by, and answering to, the accused government. These investigators will come from some arm of the government that handles such things.

Like the UN courts is not trustable even if they convict some people?

I think they have less chance of a bias. But if you mean to ask "is any court fallible?" then the answer to that question is of course yes.

Because they see the truth everyday and not getting it from some biased source?

Pot, meet kettle. Again, could you PLEASE for the billionth time I've asked, stop making accusations you can't prove?

The UN search bar failed to prove they're reffering to terrorist attacks, it's the lack of reference that provea my point.

Uh...no? You accused Amnesty International of condeming Hamas...then provided a link where they DID...let me see if I can come up with anything:

1.
2.

That took two minutes on google. Either you're being dishonest about your research, or you really really suck at doing it.

Yes really.

You ignored the "and it's faulty" part.

Why would the terrorist be spared and his victims killed? After everything was done to not harm the human shield and it failed, there's no reason not to kill the terrorist at the expense of the human shield's life.

But how can you make arguments about the sacred right of life...then ignore the sacred right to life of an innocent person? That's the problem with arguing absolutes like you were doing. You're saying I don't respect right to life, yet your the one judging when it's alright for an innocent person to die.

8 years of negotiations failed, even when all of judea and samaria were offered and part of east jerusalem.

You misunderstand, I meant WITH the hostage taker, IN that situation, not the larger body. Sorry if I was unclear.

No, there are terrorists all over the place and it's built.

Oh...you were there?

Can they do that in gaza?

The point sailed right over your head there...

When there are dozens of terrorists holding human shields it's hard even to not harm one human shield.

But that's the thing, you've made arguments that apparently they don't even need to try. Once they became a "human shield" somehow they're "right to life" you've argued so hard for evaporates.

It can't do that in a built up area like gaza. This will certainly kill the human shield.

Really? Why? Built up areas are actually GOOD for snipers because it gives them more places to hide. A sniper named Lee Harvey Oswald shot American Pres. John F. Kennedy from a book depository in Dallas, Texas, a major city. City's are a snipers friend.

You cam show me something which isn't the english version of Hamas Tv.

I have. You even showed some of it too...you just don't seem to realize it because I suspect you sometimes link to things you don't actually read.

How do you know the administration itself is accused?

Are you that dense? If I say "Israel is accused of war crimes" that obviously means the current government of Israel. Obviously, what the hell would you think it means?

"The GoI has committed to prioritising and fast-tracking the construction/ reconstruction of a number of schools and health clinics in Area C from the lists submitted by the OQR and SEMEP. Permits will be issued after formal submission of PA requests and plans."

Read what you typed, go on and read it. You claimed they were rebuilt already, this claims that they're still in the process of constructing and reconstructing them. So in short, you pulled the claim out of your ass.

---

Here's what I think it should look like Ranger.

---

That's probably the land they would be happy with, but palestinians want Jerusalem, and Israel will never give up Jerusalem. As to the Isrealis don't want it. Thats it. But other middle eastern countries want it to remain there to annoy Isreal.

---

At 3/26/11 01:38 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: "the seizure and control of an area by military forces, especially foreign territory."

seizure and control is not ownership, and how can you owe a foreign territory?

Israel seems to be doing similar with Gaza, they are occupying and have formed the blockade in the hope of controlling the territory obviously for their own benefit.

Preventing terrorist sfrom being armed.

This certainly is something that people that aren't Israel have a problem with.

Only terrorist-supporters have problem with eliminating terror.

These investigators will come from some arm of the government that handles such things.

Are you saying they never accused the government and tell anything the government tells them to?

1.

nothing relevant.

2.

Palestinans' human rights , not jews.

That took two minutes on google. Either you're being dishonest about your research, or you really really suck at doing it.

finding slander about israel takes little time, i alreayd knew that.

You ignored the "and it's faulty" part.

Technically, in reality there is a very small part of jews who were granted citizenship and are not ethnically jews.

But how can you make arguments about the sacred right of life...then ignore the sacred right to life of an innocent person?

Like ignoring the victims' right t olife?

That's the problem with arguing absolutes like you were doing. You're saying I don't respect right to life, yet your the one judging when it's alright for an innocent person to die.

How can the human shield's right to life be greater than the terrorist's victims? Not killing the terrorist, after everything was done not to harm the human shield, is preffering the human shield's life over the victims' rights.

You misunderstand, I meant WITH the hostage taker, IN that situation, not the larger body. Sorry if I was unclear.

Why hadn't the west negotiated with gaddafi? Sometimes it's impossible.

Oh...you were there?

Pictures prove it, evne pictures of "innocents" fleeing from israeli bombardment.

But that's the thing, you've made arguments that apparently they don't even need to try.

No i didn't, they are trying.

Really? Why? Built up areas are actually GOOD for snipers because it gives them more places to hide.

And more hidden places that can be trapped. Or places the terrorist know about and can kill whoever enters there.

City's are a snipers friend.

Of both sides.

Read what you typed, go on and read it. You claimed they were rebuilt already, this claims that they're still in the process of constructing and reconstructing them. So in short, you pulled the claim out of your ass.

Can you prioritise and fast-track something which has never occurred?