Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/12/11 10:38 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: You don't know what "consensus" means do you? Dictionary time again: Consensus. So now that you know what it means, you can see Al-Qaida can disagree that it's not a terrorist organization (and of course they'll say that,

"majority of opinion" , if you ask al-qaida members their majority of them will say it isn't terrorist, but we don't care about them so we don't ask them. Same with europe.

That's not my point at all. I'm merely saying you can't argue something like it's a known fact if there is still some lingering doubt.

Because killing jews is only doubtfully violating human rights?

How can you bring this up in the face of qouting arguments that have nothing to do with this?

If they can shoot 120 missles in 48 hours, the threat is imminent.

I'm arguing there's a threat. My argument is that you're idea that you should then go in, and kill the terrorists at all costs, even if it means killing civilians, is the ONLY way to defend Israel is a false dilemma.

What other way there is? IF the IDF wanted he wouldn't even bother to save civilians and treat them, but the IDF care and whenever possible the human shield isn't killed.

It's also barbaric

living? yes i know it's very primitive.

and I fail to see how that makes you any better then the terrorists when they are doing the same thing,

How are we doing the same things exactly?

saying their goals are more important then any other consideration and it justifies any and all slaughter.

Right, because protecting civilians who are jews are less important than murder them.

I mean, isn't Hamas running the same argument you are basically?

No, hamas wants to destroy israel and kill jews.

That they're just "defending" themselves from an "invader"?

They are attacking our civilians for the goal of terrorizing them, the IDF attack terrorirsts and only when there is no option civilians are harmed.

Ok, have fun answering your own false dilemmas and irrelevant arguments then.

Then you believe your army blindly. it is v

Not even close. It's because they are textbook undeery dangerous you know.

Ok, I see where you're getting your number from. But here's what you don't seem to acknowledge that your article does: While attacks still occur they are significantly LESS then they were previously. Meaning that the threat of rocket attacks is far less then what you seem to argue.

Because of cast lead operation, not because the terrorist choose peace over terror.

And what constitutes that defense?

Eliminating the threat.

Are there limits?

The IDF's limits, yes.

Are there things in your mind that Israel cannot, and should not do?

To protect its citizens when there is no other way? No there aren't.

Or is it all fair game as long as you claim "defense"?

We claim defense because we are actually defending ourselves while terrorists are attacking us.

You've made the statement so vague, then argued for things like shooting through human shields to kill terrorists that it makes me think there should be no limits.

If there is no other way to kill the terrorist, who will surely kill you, why can't you shoot through human shields?

Also it is a false dilemma to accuse the international community of objecting only because they support terrorism, cause there are many more logical and provable options.

They only fund a terrorist-organization whose covenant declares it's goals.

I do trust my government to defend me and itself.

So do i trust my government.

But I don't trust that what they call defense is always defense. That they only ever act altruistically, or for my best interests.

Then maybe they do sometimes crusade muslims?

It was the agreement that Israel and it's allies agreed to with Palestine. That's the agreement I'm talking about.

If palestine cooperates.

Using vagueries in the law to establish "facts on the ground" and backdoor these things into territory Israel can claim is there's.

The facts are not "on the ground" the ground itself is the fact it is israeli.

Again, just because something is technically legal doesn't make it right.

Like funding terror in disguise of humanism?

Or is your argument that the law is always correct and just?

The law that permits nations and people to fulfill their right to property is just.

So? That doesn't mean that makes them not terrorists, or that because of this others can't label them as terrorists.

So the fact the hamas isn't recognized as terrorist by it's supporters doesn't make it less terrorist.

Are you shitting me? You really think these inspections take 2 minutes? Lol fail.

The army is very trained.

Yet there are all these credible reports

Which?

If it is legally part of Palestine and the Jews in question are not Palestinian citzens? Yes, they have no rights there and the Palestinian government has a right to evict them.

Even if they were born there? You said that evicting people, if they are not part of the nation, is supremacist.

We're not talking about ethnic nations. We're talking about established nations with established governments founded along political lines. Ethnicity is irrelevant.

Because the palestinan nation has nothing to do with ethnicity, right.

Yeah. Giving it to them. Yes they had to defend it after the fact. But the British Mandate clearly gave the Zionist movement control and the rights to modern Israel. That is a fact.

The british mandate got out of israel while there was fighting, what "rights" they had didn't help them.

I can read just fine. That's why I'm saying I think it's entirely possible the statement about being "open to peace" is a fabrication. But it's possible they keep the covenant because they want it both ways so as not to endanger the merger deal.

Can you read this? "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, here is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." Can we have peace with them while they still want to kill us? Does willing to kill every jew doesn't endanger pe

---

At 5/13/11 11:36 PM, lilfozzy wrote: ohh oh my! is this another brainwashed muslim made to believe that the (illegal humans) control a part of land which (is illegal to be controlled by jews) and should be (liberated)!

jees dude just shut up about this think of all the crap the jewish people have gone through, how many of them have died by the hands of the countries around themselves!

Derpaderpaderp, he's refering to the OP, who was being sarcastic.

You wanna know something funny? The original Jews immigrated to Canaan around the same time as the Phillistines, the Jews come from Mesopotamia from the city of Ur in Present day Iraq techniclly making them the first Arabs to get there hence why their DNA is so similar to Arabs, the Phillistines were Greek immigrants from the Aegean, when the Roman empire came and conquered the area they expelled the Jews and the Phillistines remained, centuries later the Arabs moved in and merged with the Phillistines now called Palestinians, hence why the Palestinians have a good portion of DNA related to the Greeks.

So technically the Jews were the first Arab oppressors of the land, well you can figure that out just by reading the Old Testament.

---

At 5/14/11 06:59 AM, satanbrain wrote: "majority of opinion" , if you ask al-qaida members their majority of them will say it isn't terrorist, but we don't care about them so we don't ask them. Same with europe.

Except you have to give a shit about what Europe and the rest say. Because those are your allies. If you seriously can't understand the difference between listening to allies, vs. listening to terrorists...

Because killing jews is only doubtfully violating human rights?

I'm getting really tired of you deliberately twisting my words to resort to slander. If you don't have an actual counter argument, just drop the point.

If they can shoot 120 missles in 48 hours, the threat is imminent.

Except I'm having problems finding out where they are shooting that many, in the time frame your quoting. Even in your own articles.

What other way there is?

Several and many. That's why what you keep arguing are false dilemmas. Just because your ignorant personally of other options does not mean the options don't exist.

IF the IDF wanted he wouldn't even bother to save civilians and treat them, but the IDF care and whenever possible the human shield isn't killed.

The IDF could do that...and then Israel would be fucked internationally and would have to replace the IDF. Let's not sit here and make up things like the only reason the IDF acts in a ethical and moral way is simply because everyone in the IDF is ethical and moral.

living? yes i know it's very primitive.

Cute. Total bullshit. But cute. Arguing to end innocent life because it's not as important as other innocent life is barbaric and prejudiced.

How are we doing the same things exactly?

You've been arguing you should be able to. That you should be able to take out or neutralize anything that gets in the way of killing terrorists. Because in your ignorant little mind there is no other way to deal with the threat then to kill it. Stop trying to cut up my points and act like you haven't argued what you've clearly argued.

Right, because protecting civilians who are jews are less important than murder them.

Not what I'm saying at all. But you're argument is protecting jewish civilians is more important then protecting any other kind of civilian. Don't sit here and make me out to be the guy who's prejudice when you're the one spouting off about killing anybody you want in the name of defense.

No, hamas wants to destroy israel and kill jews.

And you want to destroy Hamas and kill Palestinians. Look! Same argument! We just have to substitute a couple of names.

They are attacking our civilians for the goal of terrorizing them, the IDF attack terrorirsts and only when there is no option civilians are harmed.

You're so sure of that why? Because they told you so? Also that's your story, the terrorists have a different belief obviously. That's my point. I'm not arguing the terrorists are right, I'm just saying that in their mind, they feel they are doing exactly what you claim Israel to be doing.

Then you believe your army blindly.

You're the guy arguing that all you need to do is listen to what you're army (The IDF) tells you and that they'd never ever get anything wrong.

Because of cast lead operation, not because the terrorist choose peace over terror.

But Cast Lead DID make them start rethinking the strategy don't you think? It's not like Cast Lead killed every single terrorist, we know this simply because the rocket attacks continue. But what I'm saying is Cast Lead may have taught them they had to change the approach and showed them through an overwhelming show of force that perhaps their only option is peace and compromise. At least for the people that aren't hard liners.

Eliminating the threat.

By any means necessary?

The IDF's limits, yes.

Which are what? Also I find it funny that you seem think the IDF is somehow independently dictating policy. Do you think that?

To protect its citizens when there is no other way? No there aren't.

Congrats. You have the same mindset as Hamas and the other enemies you condemn.

We claim defense because we are actually defending ourselves while terrorists are attacking us.

It must be so wonderful to live in a world where you choose to be so ignorant and have such unwavering faith in your government...I wish I could do that, I really do...but the problem is I have thoughts.

If there is no other way to kill the terrorist, who will surely kill you, why can't you shoot through human shields?

Cause they're INNOCENT and it violates the fucking law? The law you seem to argue is sacrosanct until it gets in the way of what you want. God you're a fucking hypocrite.

They only fund a terrorist-organization whose covenant declares it's goals.

They are providing aid. Providing aid is not the same as funding the organization. The aid is meant for the citizens, not to help Hamas achieve it's aims.

So do i trust my government.

But I also know that my government claims sometimes it's defending me, when really there's other motives involved that are actually about benefiting people who have nothing to do with me. See Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then maybe they do sometimes crusade muslims?

Uh, no. I meant fighting wars and dealing with hostile nations because they feel there's something they can get out of doing it that benefits them or their friends, but actually puts me in danger.

If palestine cooperates.

I don't remember any clause put in there of "but we get backsies on that territory if you we don't like what you do"

The facts are not "on the ground" the ground itself is the fact it is israeli.

I'm so tired of this argument. We've debunked it, how about we just agree to disagree and move on from it? Ok?

Like funding terror in disguise of humanism?

Except that's not what the funding is. How about you actually learn about these things before hitting the keyboard?

The law that permits nations and people to fulfill their right to property is just.

Ok...that law however does not protect the claims your making. But I know, you're defending it purely out of self-interest, but it's been shown you don't understand property law at all.

So the fact the hamas isn't recognized as terrorist by it's supporters doesn't make it less terrorist.

We're not talking about their supporters. We're talking about the way the international community views Hamas. That view does not seem to have consensus.

The army is very trained.

It still doesn't take 2 minutes you nit wit. I guarantee you they cannot inspect an incoming ship in two minutes unless they're the goddamn Flash

Which?

You know.

Even if they were born there? You said that evicting people, if they are not part of the nation, is supremacist.

No, I said if people have a legal right to be there, then evicting them solely because of something like they're race is supremacist. If they do not have a legal right to be on the land, then it is fine for the governing power to have them leave.

Because the palestinan nation has nothing to do with ethnicity, right.

Will the land they govern be ethnically homogenous? I think not. Thus I don't think we can define nation as ethnicity only.

The british mandate got out of israel while there was fighting, what "rights" they had didn't help them.

You obviously don't know what I mean by British Mandate in this case...I'm talking about how "Israel" first raised it's flag. Which was done because the British who governed at the time allowed them to do.

Can you read this? "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Moslem, here is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him." Can we have peace with them while they still want to kill us? Does willing to kill every jew doesn't endanger pe

It does indeed. But I have a hard time believing everyone in Palestine is this hard line. You can't beat Hamas by martyring them. You beat them by going around them and making them useless.

---

At 5/12/11 07:45 AM, satanbrain wrote: If they violate the law they'll be punished, what's the problem with that? Because they are palestinans we should give them an advantage to violate the law?

For fuck's sake, that's you response? "It's the law"? You're responding as if we were talking about three college students getting a fine for drinking beer in a park during a sunny afternoon. "Hey man, it's the law". Except in this case the college students didn't get a fine, their residency was revoked and are never allowed to set foot in their homeland again. Along with 139,997 other college students who committed a similar offence.

All of these 140,000 college students belonged to a certain ethnic group, by the way, but that's of course irrelevant, because it's clearly just about the law. And about not getting an "advantage" over non-Palestinians, for whom it holds that if you can show that one of your grandparents was a non-practicing Jew and you say "hava nagila" to an official at Ben Gurion international airport you basically get Israeli citizenship awarded to you stante pede.

Blegh.

---

More civilians were killed, on the border because they were protesting. The one guy who had a bomb, I understand, but unarmed civilians holding flags? What is this?

Israel IS a terrorist country. This has to stop. It's gotten to the point where I've lost all faith in the UN. They sit back and watch.

---

At 5/15/11 12:31 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Except you have to give a shit about what Europe and the rest say. Because those are your allies.

I think the american aid is enough.

If you seriously can't understand the difference between listening to allies, vs. listening to terrorists...

"Allies" who finance terrorists.

Except I'm having problems finding out where they are shooting that many,

They did shoot that many and they can at any time.

Several and many.

Such as? Surrender and hope we won't die?

Let's not sit here and make up things like the only reason the IDF acts in a ethical and moral way is simply because everyone in the IDF is ethical and moral.

They are disciplined to be, when they are recruited they are just regual people but their superiors discipline them to be moral and ethnical.

Arguing to end innocent life because it's not as important as other innocent life is barbaric and prejudiced.

It is important just the same, that's why letting the terrorist kill civilians to save the human shield is wrong.

You've been arguing you should be able to. That you should be able to take out or neutralize anything that gets in the way of killing terrorists.

Everything to eliminate the threat, if the terrorist is already caught he is send to jail.

Because in your ignorant little mind there is no other way to deal with the threat then to kill it.

Can you always eliminate the threat without killing?

Not what I'm saying at all. But you're argument is protecting jewish civilians is more important then protecting any other kind of civilian.

and protecting other kind of civilian is more important than jewish civilians? The terrorist uses the human shield, if the terrorist is dead he won't be using any more human shields.

And you want to destroy Hamas and kill Palestinians

Palestinian terrorists, there's a difference.

You're so sure of that why? Because they told you so?

You are so sure the US army isn't crusaind? Because they told you so?

Also that's your story, the terrorists have a different belief obviously.

Their reason to killing civilians is because we live not to protect anyone, but even so, that's their problem.

That's my point. I'm not arguing the terrorists are right, I'm just saying that in their mind,

In their mind they believe we all should die because we are jews. They admitted so.

they feel they are doing exactly what you claim Israel to be doing.

No they don't, if they wanted to protect anyone they wouldn't have using him as a human shield.

You're the guy arguing that all you need to do is listen to what you're army (The IDF) tells you and that they'd never ever get anything wrong.

If they get they investigate it.

But Cast Lead DID make them start rethinking the strategy don't you think?

so cast lead was effective, killing terrorists is the way to make them stop.

But what I'm saying is Cast Lead may have taught them they had to change the approach and showed them through an overwhelming show of force that perhaps their only option is peace and compromise. At least for the people that aren't hard liners.

Peace would be saving innocent life from both sides right? Is killing a human shield, when there is no other way, to kill terrorists and cause them to "change their approach" and work toward peace is right?

By any means necessary?

There aren't that many means necessary, also eliminating the threat doesn't have to be by killing, somtimes it have to be.

Congrats. You have the same mindset as Hamas and the other enemies you condemn.

Hamas have other way and hamas isn't trying to protect anyone.

It must be so wonderful to live in a world where you choose to be so ignorant and have such unwavering faith in your government..

.
Like your faith that your government isn't executing crusades on innocent muslims?

Cause they're INNOCENT and it violates the fucking law?

So a terrorist holding a human shield can take over the world?

They are providing aid. Providing aid is not the same as funding the organization. The aid is meant for the citizens, not to help Hamas achieve it's aims.

And who is controlling the aid? Who is distributeing it?

Uh, no. I meant fighting wars and dealing with hostile nations because they feel there's something they can get out of doing it that benefits them or their friends, but actually puts me in danger.

But maybe their fanatics who will benefit from crusades? Or their friends are?

We're not talking about their supporters. We're talking about the way the international community views Hamas. That view does not seem to have consensus.

The international community of al-qaida members doesn't see it as terrorist.

It still doesn't take 2 minutes you nit wit. I guarantee you they cannot inspect an incoming ship in two minutes unless they're the goddamn Flash

Not a ship, a single truck. A ship is unloaded and it's aid is transferred through ground.

No, I said if people have a legal right to be there, then evicting them solely because of something like they're race is supremacist.

I never claimed that a race grants you any right. Only a nation.

If they do not have a legal right to be on the land, then it is fine for the governing power to have them leave.

Exactly.

Will the land they govern be ethnically homogenous? I think not.

I think it's homogenous. Palestinians are not egyptians nor syrians.

Thus I don't think we can define nation as ethnicity only.

But an ethinicty is what makes the nation, and the ethnicity have it's own culture and language.

You obviously don't know what I mean by British Mandate in this case...I'm talking about how "Israel" first raised it's flag. Which was done because the British who governed at the time allowed them to do.

So they raised a flag, did the armies coming to kill them cared about any flags?

It does indeed. But I have a hard time believing everyone in Palestine is this hard line.

Everyone who is part of hamas.

You can't beat Hamas by martyring them.

Worshipping shahids is a choice, if the death of these terrorists bring more terrorists they'll be killed. We can't worry about the potential growth in their ranks and not attack them while they are killing us, that way they'll surely win.

You beat them by going around them and making them useless.

Or going around them, killing them and let someone you can make peace with take their position. Terrorist leaders were killed that way.

At 5/15/11 09:38 AM, lapis wrote: Except in this case the college students didn't get a fine, their residency was revoked and are never allowed to set foot in their homeland again. Along with 139,997 other college students who committed a similar offence.

If they had bothered to remember their ID cards their residency wouldn't have been cancelled. They even had 6 months after the cards expired to renew them.

All of these 140,000 college students belonged to a certain ethnic group,

And all of them didn't care enough to renew their ID cards.

At 5/15/11 09:38 PM, JJdaDJ wrote: More civilians were killed, on the border because they were protesting.

While they were stoning and throwing molotov cocktails at IDF soldiers.

The one guy who had a bomb, I understand, but unarmed civilians holding flags? What is this?

Holding flags and stones and molotov cocktails. And trying to invade israel.

---

Haniyeh on Nakba Day: Pray for an end to Israel, peace with hamas?

---

At 5/13/11 04:23 AM, Chris-V2 wrote:

a) The Majority are NOT Islamic Extremists, they're are just the poor working class of an oppresive society.

Hamas is a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, what are you talking about?

b) The working class do not see constant violent clashes as the future. Merely the only alternative to a political system designed to marginalise them.

Hamas does, it says that they will wipe Jews off the face of the earth. They don't want peace with Israel, so yes, violent clashes are their future.

c) If given an opportunity to free themselves from poverty, the people will shun militant groups as irrelevant, bigoted and totalitarian.

Like Egypt's doing, inviting the Muslim Brotherhood? Yeah right.

Say what you will, Israel will generate its own enemies until it allows Palestine and Gaza to live without oppresive, invading, imperialist pig forces occupying its state. That means no border control, no home demolition, no collecting tax on behalf of the state and then withholding it and no more dead civilians.

Likewise, that means no Qassam rockets, no more suicide bombings, no more wiggling out of peace treaties. And Israel withdrew from Gaza four years ago.

No one will support Hamas if Hamas have no battle to fight, no one will fight Israel unless they feel they need to do it for their immediate safety. Continueing to treat the minority like the majority is just dragging the issue out with an end goal and occupying/controlling more of Palestine than is done at present.

The minority like the Majority? Jews are 75% of Israel, excuse me?
Israel is an Arab state. Did you know that after its founding after the 1948 war Israel was 70% racially Arab? Yes, Arab Jews. That number only went down because Israel allowed immigration from Europe and Africa.

Too many people think only in the past. Let's think real terms now. Can we simply just tell the Israelis "go back to Europe/Iraq/Egypt/America/Russia, etc.?" No. Israel is here and it's here to stay. You cannot get rid of it. I oppose Israeli settlements in West Bank and Gaza but if they wanted to have all of Eretz Yisrael they would have done so a long time ago.

---

At 5/16/11 06:51 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

Hamas is a wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, what are you talking about?

Strawman arguement. No one said that the majority of any country were members of Hamas or Muslim Brotherhood.

Hamas does, it says that they will wipe Jews off the face of the earth. They don't want peace with Israel, so yes, violent clashes are their future.

Again, strawman. The majority are not Hamas supporters and, if the Egyptian scenario is anything to be read into, they will stop supporting Hamas once their joint goal of an independant Palestine is reached. At this point Hamas becomes a nuisance to both parties. These sort of groups are just vehicles for change and their goals and the public's goals may not coincide very much at all.

Like Egypt's doing, inviting the Muslim Brotherhood? Yeah right.

Egypt is shunning the Muslim Brotherhood actually, yes. The people aren't interested in replacing Imperialist Dogmas with Extremist Dogma, that wasn't the intention of the revolution. For instance in this, admittedly anecdotal tale, the reporter writes

"Ahmed Ezzat, a human rights lawyer and founder of the recently established Workers' Democratic Party, most eloquently summed up the frustration these activists feel towards the Brotherhood. "They switched from revolutionaries to counter-revolutionaries in the space of 24 hours." Almost as soon as the protests ended, the movement began to play a role increasingly at odds with the goals of the youth and workers' movements.

I saw this with my own eyes in Tahrir, when, during a victory concert on February 12, a group of several dozen conservative religious men and women pushed their way to the front of the audience - the men creating a cordon around the hijab-wearing women so they could have the best view without having to stand next to men - hijacked the stage, and spent the better part of the next hourharanguing the audience about their lack of Islamic behaviour, despite incessant shouts to stop."

Likewise, that means no Qassam rockets, no more suicide bombings, no more wiggling out of peace treaties. And Israel withdrew from Gaza four years ago.

Billy bullshit on that Gaza claim, everyone knows that is simply not the case. Also, as I said, those will stop once people feel there is no need. Suicide bombings aren't exactly a weekend hobby. These sort of petty attacks are difficult, dangerous, costly and scary for the untrained youthes expected to do them and would be a non issue if they didn't feel so frustrated by their situation.

The minority like the Majority? Jews are 75% of Israel, excuse me?

I'm talking the Palestinian Majority, nitwit. Though I imagine most of the Middle East must look like it belongs to Israel to a supporter to this sort of crazy shit. You're making it about being Jewish, or Muslim, or Palestinian. And it's not. It's about those who are allowed HAVE and those who are told they CAN NOT. They're not angry about Israel, they're angry about what Israel did to them.

Look at the IRA - support dissapeared around the 1990's when Ireland began to get wealthy. ETA had the same in the noughties. Al Qaeda are having it now as people are beginning to see a route that requires neither side. These extremist groups stem from ignorance and poverty, not from blood thirsty anti-semitism. If you'd gone back in time and gotten Hitler a nice job after WWI, chances are he'd have been happy out with the status quo.

Israel is an Arab state. Did you know that after its founding after the 1948 war Israel was 70% racially Arab? Yes, Arab Jews. That number only went down because Israel allowed immigration from Europe and Africa.

By allowed do you mean used American funding to pay for Africans and Europeans who were Jewish to be moved to Israel with gauranteed housing and interest free loans? Sounds like they bought them up to me. Not that I take issue with that. It's more the brutal oppresion of any voices in the media or public that gets on my nerves. Israel doesnt even treat Israelis very nicely these days.

Too many people think only in the past. Let's think real terms now. Can we simply just tell the Israelis "go back to Europe/Iraq/Egypt/America/Russia, etc.?" No. Israel is here and it's here to stay. You cannot get rid of it. I oppose Israeli settlements in West Bank and Gaza but if they wanted to have all of Eretz Yisrael they would have done so a long time ago.

I'm not talking about getting rid of Israel - again you're completely misconstrueing what I say. Israel wont go away, though I do reject it as an ethical, legitamite state. The issue here is that Hamas happens to be a conveniant excuse for Israel to censor any opposing voices to its regime. Anyone who disputes the Israel zealotry is an Anti-Semite, anyone who opposes their activity in Palestine refutes their right to exist.

The fact is that while they could have taken it, countries like Iran could have reacted very harshly. Like 300 miles of glass in the desert harshly. This sort of external buffer of WW-II guilt approach allows them to confiscate land and taxes from Palestine easily without much of a hubbub. And considering they dont pay for the army, their military budget isnt weighing over their conscience either. They can wait all day.

---

At 5/16/11 05:54 AM, satanbrain wrote: I think the american aid is enough.

What do you base that on?

"Allies" who finance terrorists.

Except I already explained how this is a misinterpretation.

They did shoot that many and they can at any time.

Proof?

Such as? Surrender and hope we won't die?

I laid them out over and over, and you continue to assert this false dilemma. Go read my prior posts where I listed options.

They are disciplined to be, when they are recruited they are just regual people but their superiors discipline them to be moral and ethnical.

Oh really? And that means there's no possible way they won't be? Also how can you honestly say "regular people" aren't ethical and moral? That is what you imply with the way you phrased this.

It is important just the same, that's why letting the terrorist kill civilians to save the human shield is wrong.

But killing the innocent human shield because of some false notion the only way to deal with the terrorist is to kill him is ok? You're trading innocent life for innocent life. The only reason I can assume you're ok with that is the assumption the human shield is not a Jew, and thus is not important to you.

Everything to eliminate the threat, if the terrorist is already caught he is send to jail.

You however have said you can't jail terrorists. The only way to deal with them is to kill them.

Can you always eliminate the threat without killing?

Can you always eliminate it with killing? You kill Osama Bin Laden, have you killed Al Qaieda?

and protecting other kind of civilian is more important than jewish civilians?

Textbook false dilemma.

Palestinian terrorists, there's a difference.

Doesn't seem like you recognize it when you argue to kill human shields, who will most likely be Palestinian civilians.

You are so sure the US army isn't crusaind? Because they told you so?

I know the US Army has persecuted civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, this has been reported. That's why I'm asking you why you somehow seem to think you're military is perfect. In the end it's a force of men with many different backgrounds and ideologies. To think they will always act in perfect harmony and in an ethical manner is a bit pie in the sky.

Their reason to killing civilians is because we live not to protect anyone, but even so, that's their problem.

You really think you know their reasons huh? I find it hard to believe. This sounds like when President Bush used to tell the American public the terrorists "hate us for our freedom".

In their mind they believe we all should die because we are jews. They admitted so.

I've also seen where it's been expanded to "They are Jews, and they are on land that belongs to us" that seems to be the central problem. They see you as an invader that has something that belongs to them. Let's deal honestly with their garbage shall we?

No they don't, if they wanted to protect anyone they wouldn't have using him as a human shield.

Again, just because they feel they are right, doesn't make them right. You understand the difference don't you? Also I think it's a misnomer to act like Israel only acts in self defense.

If they get they investigate it.

And of course those conclusions are above reproach and could never be tainted right?

so cast lead was effective, killing terrorists is the way to make them stop.

No, not really. It made them rethink the strategy and try to be smarter and attack less. It's clear they still attack, just not as much.

Peace would be saving innocent life from both sides right?

Peace would be signing a treaty and both sides ceasing hostilities.

:Is killing a human shield, when there is no other way, to kill terrorists and cause them to "change their approach" and work toward peace is right?

You haven't proven there is no other way. Other then by just arguing from personal incredulity and false dilemma that other ways don't exist/

There aren't that many means necessary, also eliminating the threat doesn't have to be by killing, somtimes it have to be.

Wait, you're back pedaling now. Because you clearly and unequivocally HAVE argued up till now that the only way WAS killing.

Hamas have other way and hamas isn't trying to protect anyone.

I said the same mindset if you're willing to do anything (including killing, and killing innocents) as long as it furthers your goals.

Like your faith that your government isn't executing crusades on innocent muslims?

Show me proof they are. If I have proof they are, I will condemn them. I certainly condemn our torture program.

So a terrorist holding a human shield can take over the world?

False dilemma.

And who is controlling the aid? Who is distributeing it?

Read for yourself

But maybe their fanatics who will benefit from crusades? Or their friends are?

What crusades? There's no crusades (as you're defining them) going on.

The international community of al-qaida members doesn't see it as terrorist.

Slander doesn't strengthen your point.

Not a ship, a single truck. A ship is unloaded and it's aid is transferred through ground.

Why would they wait till it's loaded onto a truck? In fact, the policy says they inspect the goods at the ship. I can source that if you like.

I never claimed that a race grants you any right. Only a nation.

But you define a nation as having a territorial right. So right now you're either ignorant of the implications of your own arguments, or you're lying.

Exactly.

You agree with me, excellent. I bet we're still far apart though on what "legal right" means since you pick and choose what laws apply in cases like this.

I think it's homogenous. Palestinians are not egyptians nor syrians.

Do they have any Jews though? Are there blacks, whites, etc on the land? Do you have any facts that they're ethnically homogenous? Or just an opinion. Considering you started with "I think" I'm guessing it's mostly opinion.

But an ethinicty is what makes the nation, and the ethnicity have it's own culture and language.

No, it is not. The definition of the word "nation" is not purely about ethnicity.

So they raised a flag, did the armies coming to kill them cared about any flags?

You miss the forest for the trees. I don't dispute that they defended the land. But I'm saying they would have had no land to defend if the territory wasn't given to them. Do you understand now?

Everyone who is part of hamas.

You mean an official within the party? Or a supporter?

Worshipping shahids is a choice, if the death of these terrorists bring more terrorists they'll be killed. We can't worry about the potential growth in their ranks and not attack them while they are killing us, that way they'll surely win.

So I'm confused again...you argued earlier they're are ways to deal with them other then killing...but here the only option you mention is killing.

Or going around them, killing them and let someone you can make peace with take their position. Terrorist leaders were killed that way.

Yeah...but just because you kill a terrorist leader doesn't cripple the organization. Again you mention killing as the only option...interesting

---

At 5/16/11 07:34 PM, Chris-V2 wrote:

Billy bullshit on that Gaza claim, everyone knows that is simply not the case. Also, as I said, those will stop once people feel there is no need. Suicide bombings aren't exactly a weekend hobby. These sort of petty attacks are difficult, dangerous, costly and scary for the untrained youthes expected to do them and would be a non issue if they didn't feel so frustrated by their situation.

Aww, those poor suicide bombers. They just wanted a hug. So frustration about the situation excuses their violence? It doesn't, and we can't use the fact that they're scared and frustrated as an excuse. With that logic, the IDF should be excused in attacking Gaza since they are scared by the prospect of being bombed in a market or getting on a bus. You cannot simply say, "well they're frustrated, so they'll continue to bomb." Peace means having to concede. Israel cannot give up its weapons and assume that eventually Hamas will come to its senses and stop bombing. You have to understand that there are people in Gaza who do not want peace. Their definition of peace is the destruction of Israel. Hamas is not a moderate group and they have no real place in a peace process.

I'm talking the Palestinian Majority, nitwit. Though I imagine most of the Middle East must look like it belongs to Israel to a supporter to this sort of crazy shit. You're making it about being Jewish, or Muslim, or Palestinian. And it's not. It's about those who are allowed HAVE and those who are told they CAN NOT. They're not angry about Israel, they're angry about what Israel did to them.

No, you're making assumptions. I believe Israel's borders should be what it gained in 1949, the Golan, and East Jerusalem. Gaza and the West Bank should be Palestinian.

You know, if the whole time the Palestinians wanted their own state, how come they never complained when Gaza was part of Egypt from 1949-67 or when the West Bank was Jordanian from 1949-67? Statehood was only an issue AFTER Israel conquered those areas. So I'd be careful when saying that a state is all that the Palestinians ever wanted.
In addition, the Palestinian Authority has control over the West Bank and Hamas rules Gaza. It's not how it was in the 1980s when Israel controlled the governments in those areas. Things have changed; you have to realize that.

Look at the IRA - support dissapeared around the 1990's when Ireland began to get wealthy. ETA had the same in the noughties. Al Qaeda are having it now as people are beginning to see a route that requires neither side. These extremist groups stem from ignorance and poverty, not from blood thirsty anti-semitism. If you'd gone back in time and gotten Hitler a nice job after WWI, chances are he'd have been happy out with the status quo.

One can lead to the other. Everyone needs a scapegoat, right? After all, anti-Semitism didn't become German policy until the Weimar Republic's economy fell. Iran (or its government) wasn't incredibly anti-Semitic until the people grew poorer and anti-Semitism began to flourish.
You don't see the connection; poverty and ignorance can and often does lead to anti-Semitism. And the people doing it today in Hamas have been born into this. Maybe their grandparents got their anti-Semitism from hard times and could've been happy with the "status quo" but those who are in charge today have ALWAYS hated Jews and for them there is no other status quo.

By allowed do you mean used American funding to pay for Africans and Europeans who were Jewish to be moved to Israel with gauranteed housing and interest free loans? Sounds like they bought them up to me. Not that I take issue with that. It's more the brutal oppresion of any voices in the media or public that gets on my nerves. Israel doesnt even treat Israelis very nicely these days.

American funding? Links please. Make them credible. And buying immigrants? Israel rescued Jews starving in Ethiopia and in the USSR.

I'm not talking about getting rid of Israel - again you're completely misconstrueing what I say. Israel wont go away, though I do reject it as an ethical, legitamite state. The issue here is that Hamas happens to be a conveniant excuse for Israel to censor any opposing voices to its regime. Anyone who disputes the Israel zealotry is an Anti-Semite, anyone who opposes their activity in Palestine refutes their right to exist.

Israeli censorship? Links please.
I don't believe that people who are anti-Zionist are therefore anti-Semitic; however, often the two go hand-in-hand. Look at Hamas and the PA and the PLO and the flotilla movement.

The fact is that while they could have taken it, countries like Iran could have reacted very harshly. Like 300 miles of glass in the desert harshly. This sort of external buffer of WW-II guilt approach allows them to confiscate land and taxes from Palestine easily without much of a hubbub. And considering they dont pay for the army, their military budget isnt weighing over their conscience either. They can wait all day.

Israel doesn't pay for its army? What are you talking about?
Was Israel created as a result of post-WWII guilt? I believe that expedited the process. But the fact is that Britain pledged support for a Jewish state long before the Holocaust in 1917. You can debate all you want; the fact is that the idea and support for a Jewish state existed LONG before the Holocaust.

---

At 5/16/11 07:43 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: What do you base that on?

Us aid to israel.

Except I already explained how this is a misinterpretation.

Do you deny hamas's intention to kill jews? Do you deny the fact that europe is financing a hamas-allied government?

I laid them out over and over, and you continue to assert this false dilemma. Go read my prior posts where I listed options.

I remember them and i remember their refutation.

Oh really? And that means there's no possible way they won't be?

Of course there is, that's why the army investigate these actions.

Also how can you honestly say "regular people" aren't ethical and moral?

They don't know how to be ethical and moral in these situations they have never faced, they may surrender to fear or hate and make a mistake that would cost lives.

But killing the innocent human shield because of some false notion

Why is the notion that the terrorist is killing civilians is false?

You however have said you can't jail terrorists.

Not the kind of terrorists who keep shooting you and if he is to be disarmed other terrorists will kill you.

Can you always eliminate it with killing? You kill Osama Bin Laden, have you killed Al Qaieda?

You have weakened it, al-qaida's force is not infinite, the battle will not be easy but don't think their forces are undefeatable.

Doesn't seem like you recognize it when you argue to kill human shields,

Can you always avoid killing the human shield?

who will most likely be Palestinian civilians.

It doesn't matter who he is.

I know the US Army has persecuted civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, this has been reported.

Then why isn't this crusading?

In the end it's a force of men with many different backgrounds and ideologies. To think they will always act in perfect harmony and in an ethical manner is a bit pie in the sky.

If they are disciplined harsh enough they will be ethical and moral.

You really think you know their reasons huh?

They have admitted it, they repeat it and they seem to connect it with their other problems.

I find it hard to believe. This sounds like when President Bush used to tell the American public the terrorists "hate us for our freedom".

The meaning of the full name of al-qaida is: "world islamic front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders", they may hate you for the fact you are aiding israel.

I've also seen where it's been expanded to "They are Jews, and they are on land that belongs to us" that seems to be the central problem.

Did they say they would kill every jew which is stealing their land or every jew?

They see you as an invader that has something that belongs to them.

They see us as people who should be killed.

Again, just because they feel they are right, doesn't make them right.

So why should we care so much about them?

Also I think it's a misnomer to act like Israel only acts in self defense.

But it does, when there are wouldbe-infiltrators coming to your border and attacking your soldiers it is self-defense to protect yourself.

And of course those conclusions are above reproach and could never be tainted right?

The army is not doing it for hypocrite terrorist-supporters, it is doing it for bettering itself.

No, not really. It made them rethink the strategy and try to be smarter and attack less. It's clear they still attack, just not as much.

and if we would not protect ourselves they would attack us massively again, and they would claim "invasion" instead of "occupation" this time.

Wait, you're back pedaling now. Because you clearly and unequivocally HAVE argued up till now that the only way WAS killing.

The only way in cast-lead when terrorists were everywhere.

Show me proof they are.

Terrorist-supporters claim so, should i not believe these terorrist-supporters?

If I have proof they are, I will condemn them. I certainly condemn our torture program.

The one that got osama's hiding place?

Read for yourself

I am talking about the money, can israel distribute this and ascertain they don't reach terror organizations?

What crusades? There's no crusades (as you're defining them) going on.

And there weren't war crimes done it gaza.

Why would they wait till it's loaded onto a truck?

They check every truck which is loaded.

In fact, the policy says they inspect the goods at the ship. I can source that if you like.

If it's a ship that went into gaza, the ship could've unloaded it in israel.

But you define a nation as having a territorial right.

A nation does have territorial right, so?

I bet we're still far apart though on what "legal right" means since you pick and choose what laws apply in cases like this.

If the nation has never given up a land, you can't have legal rights on this land from another nation.

Do you have any facts that they're ethnically homogenous? Or just an opinion. Considering you started with "I think" I'm guessing it's mostly opinion.

Remember the study that showed jews are homogenous? It researched palestinians' genes and they were all partially israelite, in my opinion their other part and the partially israelite part makes them a nation.

You miss the forest for the trees. I don't dispute that they defended the land. But I'm saying they would have had no land to defend if the territory wasn't given to them.

Do you think the british mandate would've stayed in a middle of a war? Do you think the jewish community in israel would've given up israel if it wasn't "given"?

You mean an official within the party? Or a supporter?

Both, you've read hamas covenant, they don't get rid of it for a reason.

So I'm confused again...you argued earlier they're are ways to deal with them other then killing...but here the only option you mention is killing.

If there are situations like cast lead where there are too many terrorists to be prisoned and attempting to prison one will enable the rest to kill you, you kill them.

Yeah...but just because you kill a terrorist leader doesn't cripple the organization. Again you mention killing as the only option...interesting

When the leader of an organization that have vowed to kill you doesn't give up, he'll be killed.

---

At 5/17/11 11:01 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

DERP DERP HOLOCAUST 2.0

Hi, I'm Ranger 2 and I can't read. By "They're angry because they're poor" I took what you said to mean "Hamas R Grait! Lulz death tew Israel !!!111". And I repeatedly do thise throughout this entire debate. You even implied that I think Hamas are the rational option to support for a peaceful Palestine. I'm impressed, like I was that time someone told me their dog ate glass and died.

No, you're making assumptions. I believe Israel's borders should be what it gained in 1949, the Golan, and East Jerusalem. Gaza and the West Bank should be Palestinian.

And it doesn't and it shouldn't. If we're going to go into this pedantry I'm going to just play the "I refute Israel's right to exist" card and we can walk away. This isn't a productive discourse. Israel isn't having Gaza or the West Strip. Deal with it.

You know, if the whole time the Palestinians wanted their own state, how come they never complained when Gaza was part of Egypt from 1949-67 or when the West Bank was Jordanian from 1949-67? Statehood was only an issue AFTER Israel conquered those areas. So I'd be careful when saying that a state is all that the Palestinians ever wanted.

Well if you have so many facts why don't I response with a question that is more or less completely unrelated and hint at anti-semitism. And I'm going to leave out the fact that the Palestinians having representation within these states would be an underlying but obvious difference here. Yup, just not even going to say it.

You know if Israel wanted to be a country so badly why didn't they just wage brutal war instead of waiting for England to grand them part of their colony (Known at the time as part of Palestine) as Israel, or even stand up to the Roman Byzantine Empire? We can do this silly shit all day, it doesn't give us any answers. You're just avoiding topics.

In addition, the Palestinian Authority has control over the West Bank and Hamas rules Gaza. It's not how it was in the 1980s when Israel controlled the governments in those areas. Things have changed; you have to realize that.

Palestinian Authority is a puppet group. Hamas actually should rule all of Palestine as that's what their last election decided, so on top of that I think you'll find that the PA is also a dissident group. It has no claim over the land it governs, they were installed.

One can lead to the other. Everyone needs a scapegoat, right? After all, anti-Semitism didn't become German policy until the Weimar Republic's economy fell. Iran (or its government) wasn't incredibly anti-Semitic until the people grew poorer and anti-Semitism began to flourish.

Right, you're getting it. Poverty - anger, anger - violence. Leaders of extremist groups use lies, fear and scapegoating to get the masses to back their fundamentaly flawed beleifs. Yes yes yes!

You don't see the connection; poverty and ignorance can and often does lead to anti-Semitism. And the people doing it today in Hamas have been born into this. Maybe their grandparents got their anti-Semitism from hard times and could've been happy with the "status quo" but those who are in charge today have ALWAYS hated Jews and for them there is no other status quo.

Aww shit! You done missed the connection actually - if the people didn't agree with the "Status quo" the "Status quo" would cease to be. There ARE other groups and other dialouges but presently they are ignored because the people don't see any other discourse as being productive.

But I'm sure everyone just hates Jews for no reason and you're totally right, now that I think about it.

American funding? Links please. Make them credible. And buying immigrants? Israel rescued Jews starving in Ethiopia and in the USSR.

They were given a sweet deal, fine. But that's still buying them. Also, funding? Scroll down abit.

I'm not talking about getting rid of Israel - again you're completely misconstrueing what I say. Israel wont go away, though I do reject it as an ethical, legitamite state. The issue here is that Hamas happens to be a conveniant excuse for Israel to censor any opposing voices to its regime. Anyone who disputes the Israel zealotry is an Anti-Semite, anyone who opposes their activity in Palestine refutes their right to exist.

Israeli censorship? Links please.

Suppresion of Nakba? No?

Right, well, you must be using Israel's google.

Link

Link 2

I don't believe that people who are anti-Zionist are therefore anti-Semitic; however, often the two go hand-in-hand. Look at Hamas and the PA and the PLO and the flotilla movement.

We Irish and our Floatillas. Always hating on the Jews, eh? Really, I mean. Are you going to acknowledge a point and dismiss it on the same hand for conveniance? It feels like abit of a doublethink, don't you agree?

Israel doesn't pay for its army? What are you talking about?

Oh for FUCKS SAKE. READ SOMETHING. I've linked to this sort of crap in this thread already, I hope you're feigning ignorance. Otherwise I'll have found the source of it.

Link
Link

Was Israel created as a result of post-WWII guilt? I believe that expedited the process. But the fact is that Britain pledged support for a Jewish state long before the Holocaust in 1917. You can debate all you want; the fact is that the idea and support for a Jewish state existed LONG before the Holocaust.

Holocaust in 1917? Lolocaust.

i'm well aware of the history, you misinterpreted me (work on that). The cultural buffer being used is SINCE the end of WW II. I wouldn't exactly consider Colonial England a great source of ethical wisdom, it was done out of a sort of conveniance - they didn't want the land anymore, doing this would make wealthy Jews within and outside the common wealth happy. Hurray.

---

At 5/18/11 01:21 PM, Chris-V2 wrote:

Hi, I'm Ranger 2 and I can't read. By "They're angry because they're poor" I took what you said to mean "Hamas R Grait! Lulz death tew Israel !!!111". And I repeatedly do thise throughout this entire debate. You even implied that I think Hamas are the rational option to support for a peaceful Palestine. I'm impressed, like I was that time someone told me their dog ate glass and died.

I never once said that. That's pretty hypocritical for you to put words in my mouth and accuse you of that. There's a difference between a justification and an excuse. Your whole shtick was "well, Hamas is doing this because Israel is oppressing them."

And it doesn't and it shouldn't. If we're going to go into this pedantry I'm going to just play the "I refute Israel's right to exist" card and we can walk away. This isn't a productive discourse. Israel isn't having Gaza or the West Strip. Deal with it.

CAN YOU READ!? I JUST SAID BEFORE THAT ISRAEL SHOULD NOT HAVE THOSE TERRITORIES!

You know if Israel wanted to be a country so badly why didn't they just wage brutal war instead of waiting for England to grand them part of their colony (Known at the time as part of Palestine) as Israel, or even stand up to the Roman Byzantine Empire? We can do this silly shit all day, it doesn't give us any answers. You're just avoiding topics.

Hmm, maybe because then they would be fighting the world's biggest empire at the time, and during WWII they allied themselves with the British to fight the Germans.

Palestinian Authority is a puppet group. Hamas actually should rule all of Palestine as that's what their last election decided, so on top of that I think you'll find that the PA is also a dissident group. It has no claim over the land it governs, they were installed.

So Hamas is the rightful ruler of Palestine? I thought you said before you didn't support Hamas. Keep your facts straight. And don't say I twisted your words; how much clearer can you be than "Hamas should actually rule all of Palestine."?

Right, you're getting it. Poverty - anger, anger - violence. Leaders of extremist groups use lies, fear and scapegoating to get the masses to back their fundamentaly flawed beleifs. Yes yes yes!

Aww shit! You done missed the connection actually - if the people didn't agree with the "Status quo" the "Status quo" would cease to be. There ARE other groups and other dialouges but presently they are ignored because the people don't see any other discourse as being productive.

But I'm sure everyone just hates Jews for no reason and you're totally right, now that I think about it.

Status quos change. The status quo is Gaza is that the Israelis are to blame and should be exterminated. I can provide videos if you'd like.
My point, which you completely miss, is that the Palestinians in the 1940s could've possibly reconciled with the Jews; they lived before the wars. Today's Palestinians are born into this climate of hate; they cannot bring peace with Israel. Why? Because the status quo has changed.

We Irish and our Floatillas. Always hating on the Jews, eh? Really, I mean. Are you going to acknowledge a point and dismiss it on the same hand for conveniance? It feels like abit of a doublethink, don't you agree?

Hypocrite. Putting words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about the Irish?
You think in extremes. You think that if I say "some groups that are anti-Zionist are anti-Semites," then I really mean that all anti-Zionist sites hate Jews.

Holocaust in 1917? Lolocaust.

Huh? I never said that moron. For someone who claims to be a history buff you sure don't know yours.

i'm well aware of the history, you misinterpreted me (work on that). The cultural buffer being used is SINCE the end of WW II. I wouldn't exactly consider Colonial England a great source of ethical wisdom, it was done out of a sort of conveniance - they didn't want the land anymore, doing this would make wealthy Jews within and outside the common wealth happy. Hurray.

Yes, the British never wanted the land, that's why THEY MADE THIS DECLARATION BEFORE THE END OF WWI AND DEFEATED THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE WITH THE INTENT OF COLONIZING IT.

---

At 5/18/11 08:53 AM, satanbrain wrote: Us aid to israel.

So they provide much more aid then everybody else. Does that mean that everybody else's provided aid is somehow unnecessary? Does Israel just sort of pocket it? Are those alliances not worth having? You haven't proven anything other then what I already knew: America is Israel's biggest ally.

Do you deny hamas's intention to kill jews?

I don't deny their stated intention. I also don't deny or completely discount their stated intention to entertain peace either. You can't have one without the other, they've clearly said both things.

Do you deny the fact that europe is financing a hamas-allied government?

Define "financing" because is providing foreign aid the same as "financing"? I say no, no it is not. Since the point of sending that aid is a humanitarian effort with pretty clear instructions on how it is used (IE for the betterment of the public and to make sure they don't starve). It's very similar to the situation much of the world engages in with N. Korea.

I remember them and i remember their refutation.

Which was built on sand and an assistance on hypotheticals you didn't back with any evidence. I'm not really all that interested in going over them again, that's why I don't offer anything fresh because I imagine you'll just issue the same denials. Is that a fair statement?

Of course there is, that's why the army investigate these actions.

And they could never make a mistake, or cover something up?

They don't know how to be ethical and moral in these situations they have never faced, they may surrender to fear or hate and make a mistake that would cost lives.

So can the trained soldiers. We've seen numerous examples of that in all militaries the world over.

Why is the notion that the terrorist is killing civilians is false?

You're asking the wrong question and ignoring the innocence of the human shield again.

Not the kind of terrorists who keep shooting you and if he is to be disarmed other terrorists will kill you.

You're back pedaling and rephrasing. You have clearly said in the past you can't jail any terrorist. Then that got proven false so now here we are.

You have weakened it, al-qaida's force is not infinite, the battle will not be easy but don't think their forces are undefeatable.

I don't either. But weakened is not the same as destroyed. They still have enough infrastructure that eventually they will regroup, pick a new leader, and renew their efforts. I'm fine with Bin Laden being dead, but I'm not so delusional as to think that stopped Al Qaida.

Can you always avoid killing the human shield?

Your argument was it doesn't matter. You should kill the human shield if it means killing the terrorist. That has been your argument. It's that mentality I object to.

It doesn't matter who he is.

So you're "shoot the human shield if it means the terrorist dies" argument would apply to Jew human shields then?

Then why isn't this crusading?

Because it doesn't really meet any of the definitions for the term. It's just plain torture and cruelty.

If they are disciplined harsh enough they will be ethical and moral.

Which includes what? Also that's based on what exactly? The US military has a rigorous and harsh training program, the soldiers are clear on what they can and cannot do, yet some still choose to do the wrong things. In the end it's about the individual and their choices. Something that you CANNOT ever gain 100% control of.

They have admitted it, they repeat it and they seem to connect it with their other problems.

Maybe this is just me being overly cynical, but I always wonder if the rhetoric any of these types put out publicly is the be all and end all for the story. I always figured that being in power was a big factor too.

The meaning of the full name of al-qaida is: "world islamic front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders", they may hate you for the fact you are aiding israel.

Except that's not the stated reason why they don't like us. Also I can find 0 evidence that your definition is valid, there is good evidence that contradicts it in fact.

Did they say they would kill every jew which is stealing their land or every jew?

You think they're really looking to kill Jews outside of Israel? Or that they even believe they have the ability? Get real.

They see us as people who should be killed.

Because of the reason I stated.

So why should we care so much about them?

Well, because the general Palestinian public seems to. Unless your solution is to kill them too.

But it does, when there are wouldbe-infiltrators coming to your border and attacking your soldiers it is self-defense to protect yourself.

Great story, too bad there's all these inconvenient articles and other facts that show it's not true. Also you're either lying or ignorant if you think these are the only "defense" actions Israel has engaged in. Munich?

The army is not doing it for hypocrite terrorist-supporters, it is doing it for bettering itself.

You didn't answer my question.

and if we would not protect ourselves they would attack us massively again, and they would claim "invasion" instead of "occupation" this time.

They don't "claim" occupation. You ARE occupying under the definition of the term. Stop it already, words have meanings.

The only way in cast-lead when terrorists were everywhere.

Now you're re-bracketing the argument.

Terrorist-supporters claim so, should i not believe these terorrist-supporters?

Considering you have a vastly different definition of "terroist-supporter"...

The one that got osama's hiding place?

Uh, no it didn't. I do not remember anyone showing a correlation between torture and the get of Bin Laden.

I am talking about the money, can israel distribute this and ascertain they don't reach terror organizations?

Isn't that the sort of thing you have the Mossad for?

And there weren't war crimes done it gaza.

False dilemma.

---

They check every truck which is loaded.

Except that's actually not what they do.

If it's a ship that went into gaza, the ship could've unloaded it in israel.

You clearly don't know how these inspections are conducted. Please do not talk about things you don't even have basic knowledge of.

A nation does have territorial right, so?

I misread the argument.

If the nation has never given up a land, you can't have legal rights on this land from another nation.

Except that is NOT how the law works. Once again, do not talk about things you clearly don't understand. Made up laws in your head that contradict real laws means the real laws win.

Remember the study that showed jews are homogenous? It researched palestinians' genes and they were all partially israelite, in my opinion their other part and the partially israelite part makes them a nation.

Opinion is not the same as fact. You've extrapolated a personal belief based off one study. A study that actually shows the prescence of DIFFERENT ethnicities mixing to create your current "nation"

Do you think the jewish community in israel would've given up israel if it wasn't "given"?

They wouldn't have had it in the first place to give it up! That's my point! They got there because the governing power allowed them in! Why is this so hard to grasp?

Both, you've read hamas covenant, they don't get rid of it for a reason.

But they are also open to ignoring it since they said they're open to peace.

If there are situations like cast lead where there are too many terrorists to be prisoned and attempting to prison one will enable the rest to kill you, you kill them.

You're re-bracketing again.

When the leader of an organization that have vowed to kill you doesn't give up, he'll be killed.

That's the only option? He can't be captured? Again, it's a false dilemma to act like the only option is to kill them. Bin Laden could have been captured, the American government and the forces conducting the operation chose to kill him. That's not meant to pass judgement, just to point out another option existed.

---

At 5/18/11 09:54 PM, Ranger2 wrote: I never once said that. That's pretty hypocritical for you to put words in my mouth and accuse you of that. There's a difference between a justification and an excuse. Your whole shtick was "well, Hamas is doing this because Israel is oppressing them."

The difference is purely perceptual I think is the issue I'm underscoring. It's an excuse to you because you don't want it to be anything else.

CAN YOU READ!? I JUST SAID BEFORE THAT ISRAEL SHOULD NOT HAVE THOSE TERRITORIES!

Y u mad tho. I just misread, those full stops can be tricky little tricksters sometimes.

Hmm, maybe because then they would be fighting the world's biggest empire at the time, and during WWII they allied themselves with the British to fight the Germans.

Implying Israel isn't one of the biggest military powers in the world and backed by THE biggest military power in the world. The differences you're underscoring are again, perceptual.

So Hamas is the rightful ruler of Palestine? I thought you said before you didn't support Hamas. Keep your facts straight. And don't say I twisted your words; how much clearer can you be than "Hamas should actually rule all of Palestine."?

Well I don't support them, but they won the election and the public haven't asked them to step down. It's not my choice, it's not your choice. They should rule as they were chosen by the public to rule. You will find they will cease to rule once the people of Palestine no longer feel under threat. We could call this regime change, but since we'd be attempting to improve Quality Of Life in Palestine I don't feel I'll lose any sleep over that ethical dilemma.

Status quos change. The status quo is Gaza is that the Israelis are to blame and should be exterminated. I can provide videos if you'd like.

Again, you're missing my point. The status quo can be removed without killing either them or Israel.

My point, which you completely miss, is that the Palestinians in the 1940s could've possibly reconciled with the Jews; they lived before the wars. Today's Palestinians are born into this climate of hate; they cannot bring peace with Israel. Why? Because the status quo has changed.

Again, you're missing my point. The hate stems from deprivation, inequality, poverty. You can keep pointing at Hamas but they're the symptom not the disease. Your looking at Palestine from the 1940's till now like it was a coherent, unified decision and that all events stem from coherent decisions made by enlightened and highly aware civilians that were not looking at the immediate threat they felt on their homes, livelihoods and their country.

Hypocrite. Putting words in my mouth. Where did I say anything about the Irish?
You think in extremes. You think that if I say "some groups that are anti-Zionist are anti-Semites," then I really mean that all anti-Zionist sites hate Jews.

Well I think there's very FEW groups who are both anti-zionist and anti-semite and I think it's an issue purely drawn upon by Middle Eastern (And some Western) politicians to buffer Israeli criticisms or to play on the ignorance of the public. It is far easier to get a man to pick up a gun by telling him "Jews are bad" then by explaining in the history of the State of Israel and its effects in the area. Even if you don't beleive it's true, it's a very simple direct message.

Huh? I never said that moron. For someone who claims to be a history buff you sure don't know yours.

Well you did say that. I never claimed to be a history buff but I do happen to consider the Holocaust to have been a little laterin the 1900's than the number you gave!

Yes, the British never wanted the land, that's why THEY MADE THIS DECLARATION BEFORE THE END OF WWI AND DEFEATED THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE WITH THE INTENT OF COLONIZING IT.

Attacked Ottoman Empire with intent of colinising despite no interest in territory? No I think you'll find they had a use for it as a strategic peice of land to hold and relinquished it when its control became bothersome/trivial to them.

I'm also going to point out that you've utterly ignored the proof I gave on Israel being not only an externally funded state but an unjust State even towards its own civilians. Please comment on my FULL post in future rather than the parts you find most conveniant.

---

At 5/19/11 08:50 AM, Chris-V2 wrote:

Y u mad tho. I just misread, those full stops can be tricky little tricksters sometimes.

In other words, "ignore the mistakes I've made in arguing."

Implying Israel isn't one of the biggest military powers in the world and backed by THE biggest military power in the world. The differences you're underscoring are again, perceptual.

The British Empire was arguably the mightiest country on the world militarily.

Well I don't support them, but they won the election and the public haven't asked them to step down. It's not my choice, it's not your choice. They should rule as they were chosen by the public to rule. You will find they will cease to rule once the people of Palestine no longer feel under threat. We could call this regime change, but since we'd be attempting to improve Quality Of Life in Palestine I don't feel I'll lose any sleep over that ethical dilemma.

If that's so, then how come Saudi Arabia, an oil-rich country that does have some semblance of a middle class, is so repressive?
I see your point but the problem with (admittedly both) of our arguments on whether or not Hamas is the disease or the symptom will only be revealed through time. I still maintain that it is the disease because they are perpetuating their ills by hijacking aid and resorting to terrorist tactics. If Hamas became nonviolent their worldwide support would skyrocket. In addition, after the First Intifada Israel gave the Palestinians some self-rule and allowed tons of material aid to the territories. Why then was there another Intifada, even worse, if by your arguments, improving Gaza will stop Hamas?

Hamas is not the root cause of how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict started but it certainly is perpetuating the conflict.

Again, you're missing my point. The status quo can be removed without killing either them or Israel.

No, you're missing mine.
Status quo 1948: Maybe we could make peace with the Jews, we weren't always at war.
Then there were several wars and Israeli occupation and Palestinian terrorist attacks. The new generation grew up hating Israel, and thus the status quo changed. That's what I argued before.

Again, you're missing my point. The hate stems from deprivation, inequality, poverty. You can keep pointing at Hamas but they're the symptom not the disease. Your looking at Palestine from the 1940's till now like it was a coherent, unified decision and that all events stem from coherent decisions made by enlightened and highly aware civilians that were not looking at the immediate threat they felt on their homes, livelihoods and their country.

I think I covered this a few paragraphs above.

Well I think there's very FEW groups who are both anti-zionist and anti-semite and I think it's an issue purely drawn upon by Middle Eastern (And some Western) politicians to buffer Israeli criticisms or to play on the ignorance of the public. It is far easier to get a man to pick up a gun by telling him "Jews are bad" then by explaining in the history of the State of Israel and its effects in the area. Even if you don't beleive it's true, it's a very simple direct message.

You're right, and that helps my point. It's easy to get people to be anti-Zionist if they're anti-Semitic.

Well you did say that. I never claimed to be a history buff but I do happen to consider the Holocaust to have been a little laterin the 1900's than the number you gave!

Reread my post. I never once said that.

Attacked Ottoman Empire with intent of colinising despite no interest in territory? No I think you'll find they had a use for it as a strategic peice of land to hold and relinquished it when its control became bothersome/trivial to them.

If the British were planning on holding onto it and then relinquished it when its control became bothersome, then why did the British declare the Balfour Declaration in 1917 before they even had that land?

Look, I don't know why the British declared it, but I do know that there was support for Israel before WWII and that Israel was not just an expression of guilt from the Holocaust.

I'm also going to point out that you've utterly ignored the proof I gave on Israel being not only an externally funded state but an unjust State even towards its own civilians. Please comment on my FULL post in future rather than the parts you find most conveniant.

Same to you.

---

At 5/16/11 05:54 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 5/15/11 09:38 AM, lapis wrote: Except in this case the college students didn't get a fine, their residency was revoked and are never allowed to set foot in their homeland again. Along with 139,997 other college students who committed a similar offence.

If they had bothered to remember their ID cards their residency wouldn't have been cancelled. They even had 6 months after the cards expired to renew them.

All of these 140,000 college students belonged to a certain ethnic group,

And all of them didn't care enough to renew their ID cards.

Please, tell me unambiguously that a Jew would have gotten the same treatment in Israel. Tell me that and we'll all know what kind of a forked-tongued liar you really are.

---

You guys hear about Obama saying that peace should be based on 1967 borders? I think that is too vague. 1967 borders had a divided Jerusalem (which trust me, neither side is going to let go) and a Syrian Golan Heights. I'm all for the Palestinians having the West Bank and Gaza, but the Golan Heights is an Israeli-Syrian issue. I'd be ok with Israel giving up the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem (only if it was to be an international city) but not the Golan Heights.

---

That's not going to work. The more they divide the two people the worse it gets, what should happen is that they become one state and let free passage of Israeli's and Palestinians all over Palestine/Israel and let Palestinains who fled the country get back in the country, this brings the issue in Lebanaon to improve, this solution makes perfect sense because it follows what all the sane countries have done and satisfies both sides claim to the dirt. The division is exactly what made this conflict happen.

But hey, this is just like a journalist telling a country what to do, I don't have any control over what goes on there so whatever.

---

Something inside me says that the parallels between this thread's tone and that of goings on in Israel are spot on. Perhaps if we can find some common ground here we can apply the same method there?

---

At 5/19/11 09:45 PM, Ranger2 wrote: You guys hear about Obama saying that peace should be based on 1967 borders? I think that is too vague. 1967 borders had a divided Jerusalem (which trust me, neither side is going to let go) and a Syrian Golan Heights. I'm all for the Palestinians having the West Bank and Gaza, but the Golan Heights is an Israeli-Syrian issue. I'd be ok with Israel giving up the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem (only if it was to be an international city) but not the Golan Heights.

Did you note the part where he made it sound more like he wants the 1967 borders as a base, and anything that might be problematic in that be worked out through negotiation? I imagine that would quickly resolve the split Jerusalem issue as that would be in the top 2 things discussed at the negotiations (my hunch anyway). I like the idea of Jerusalem as an international city as it would be a wonderful gesture and perhaps move us towards a situation where Palestine and Israel could be truly peaceful neighbors (like the US and Canada for instance). But somehow I don't think this is going to work, Israel is already rejecting the idea, I imagine Hamas will do much the same. To me the fundamental problem is neither side really wants to live with the other.

---

At 5/19/11 12:25 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Does that mean that everybody else's provided aid is somehow unnecessary?

Yes, because when in the beginning of a war, when israel will be fighting US and israel's enemies it will be aided even more.

Does Israel just sort of pocket it? Are those alliances not worth having?

In the price of dying?

You haven't proven anything other then what I already knew: America is Israel's biggest ally.

And the only one truly necessary.

I don't deny their stated intention.

Stated and proven intention, it is very easy to state you want to kill only "evil occupiers" instead of evil jew.

I also don't deny or completely discount their stated intention to entertain peace either.

Peace with israel as a jewish state or peace between two palestinan states?

Define "financing" because is providing foreign aid the same as "financing"? I say no, no it is not. Since the point of sending that aid

That money.

is a humanitarian effort with pretty clear instructions on how it is used

Do they really know what hamas does with that money?

Which was built on sand and an assistance on hypotheticals you didn't back with any evidence. I'm not really all that interested in going over them again, that's why I don't offer anything fresh because I imagine you'll just issue the same denials. Is that a fair statement?

Thousands of would-be infiltrators tried to infiltrate israel, while attacking soldiers, should the soldiers get killed instead of protecting themselves and israeli citizens?

And they could never make a mistake, or cover something up?

There are governmental investigations which find out if anything like that happens.

So can the trained soldiers. We've seen numerous examples of that in all militaries the world over.

so they weren't trained harsh enough, or ethically.

They still have enough infrastructure that eventually they will regroup, pick a new leader, and renew their efforts.

and their leader will be killed again, untill either they stop or dead.

Your argument was it doesn't matter. You should kill the human shield if it means killing the terrorist. That has been your argument. It's that mentality I object to.

The "mentality" is protecting civilians, you should kill the terrorist in the price of killing human shield, when it must be so, if it means no one will be killed by this terrorist again.

So you're "shoot the human shield if it means the terrorist dies" argument would apply to Jew human shields then?

Yes, but the IDF never used human shields. And terrorists shoot civilians simply to kill them, in most cases when there's not even a soldier around.

In the end it's about the individual and their choices. Something that you CANNOT ever gain 100% control of.

but you can punish those who choose to do wrong.

Except that's not the stated reason why they don't like us.

That's the stated name they chose for themselves.

Also I can find 0 evidence that your definition is valid, there is good evidence that contradicts it in fact.

Al-qaida. Unless the intelligence doesn't know how to translate.

You think they're really looking to kill Jews outside of Israel?

They will once they finish killing every jew in israel.

Or that they even believe they have the ability? Get real.

Once they take over israel they would be "free" to terrorize other places in the world.

Because of the reason I stated.

That we live? Because of our fault that we're not dead?

Well, because the general Palestinian public seems to.

About hamas? Are you saying that the human shields chose to be human shields?

Unless your solution is to kill them too.

If the palestinans really do support hamas they will be harmed by hamas's actions, if they join it they'll be likely killed or imprisoned.

Great story, too bad there's all these inconvenient articles and other facts that show it's not true.

Written by terrorist-supporters?

Also you're either lying or ignorant if you think these are the only "defense" actions Israel has engaged in. Munich?

If terrorists could freely enter israel, which they would if everyone could enter, civilians would've been killed.

Stop it already, words have meanings.

So do the words "human right to property".

Considering you have a vastly different definition of "terroist-supporter"...

then terrorist-funder would be better? Although i don't know why someone will fund terrorists of his own free will if he doesn't support them, if they terrorizing him into funding it would be more logical.

Uh, no it didn't. I do not remember anyone showing a correlation between torture and the get of Bin Laden.

"Before a day had passed, the torture debate had flared. The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, told Fox News that the success of the hunt for Bin Laden was due to waterboarding".

Isn't that the sort of thing you have the Mossad for?

We can know they are reaching terrorist organizations, to prevent it would reach hamas means it preventing it would reach the palestinian government.

Except that's actually not what they do.

So they purposely let weapons into gaza?

Except that is NOT how the law works.

So if a nation, hypothetically, would've taken over europe it could supress the nations there, not give them freedom and they could never have their own land again?

Opinion is not the same as fact. You've extrapolated a personal belief based off one study. A study that actually shows the prescence of DIFFERENT ethnicities mixing to create your current "nation"

And it shows that the "mixture" was not enough so that there wouldn't be an homogeneity.

They wouldn't have had it in the first place to give it up! That's my point!

They would've, do you think we would give it now if the international community "takes it back"?

But they are also open to ignoring it since they said they're open to peace.

Not with a jewish state.

That's the only option? He can't be captured?

Can he be captured if he doesn't surrender? If he uses every last terrorist he got to attack you and kill you? In the capturing process?

At 5/19/11 05:42 PM, lapis wrote: Please, tell me unambiguously that a Jew would have gotten the same treatment in Israel. Tell me that and we'll all know what kind of a forked-tongued liar you really are.

Same treatment. You can say they are being too strict but not unfair.

At 5/19/11 09:59 PM, Warforger wrote: That's not going to work. The more they divide the two people the worse it gets, what should happen is that they become one state

And no nation has a country of it's own? do you know what countries like these has done in the past? declined to a civil war.

and let free passage of Israeli's and Palestinians all over Palestine/Israel

If there were no terror there would be a completly completely free passage.

and let Palestinains who fled the country get back in the country,

Because they can do whatever they wish and not be affected by their mistakes?

this brings the issue in Lebanaon to improve,

Hizbullah is ruling lebanon, how would the situation improves as long as hizbullah rules?

this solution makes perfect sense because it follows what all the sane countries have done and satisfies both sides claim to the dirt.

It wouldn't satisfy hamas who wants to kill us all.

---

At 5/19/11 05:12 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

In other words, "ignore the mistakes I've made in arguing."

I acknowledged my mistakes, I done goofed. Now, aside of thise.

The British Empire was arguably the mightiest country on the world militarily.

Exactly, so the parallel is drawn. The reason for mass inaction in both scenarios is due largely to fear.

If that's so, then how come Saudi Arabia, an oil-rich country that does have some semblance of a middle class, is so repressive?

Well for a start I think you'll find that Palestine does have a middle class and that Saudi Arabia does have a lower class. You'll also find the difference between the wealthiest and poorest in both scenarios massive, education poor and a corruption stemming from a lack of government transparency (Which can be caused by both a lack of education amongst the working class majority and/or just misinforming and hiding the corruption). Anyway, you're trying to draw differences that aren't really there. They're both impoverished states being governed harshly (Though Palestinians find the IDF to be their main oppresor) and they both have bodies preventing revolution through fear mongering and media censorship.

I see your point but the problem with (admittedly both) of our arguments on whether or not Hamas is the disease or the symptom will only be revealed through time. I still maintain that it is the disease because they are perpetuating their ills by hijacking aid and resorting to terrorist tactics.

I'm glad you concede to some extent, but surely it's clear that the people that do this aren't plucked out of the air. People have to WANT to risk their lives - being in Hamas is not rewarding, not well paid. It is not a traditional army. It is ugly, brutal work in which you are villainised and if caught will be tortured, killed, incarcirated etc. etc.

If Hamas became nonviolent their worldwide support would skyrocket.

I'm going to refute this on the grounds that their primary function for the Palestinians is as a vehicle for social change. If Hamas became non violent they would become the Palestinian Authority and the people of Palestine would be left to die like so many oppressed masses before them.

Excuse all the socialist language, I was hanging out with some today. Their damn lingo is contagious - and largely ineffective.

In addition, after the First Intifada Israel gave the Palestinians some self-rule and allowed tons of material aid to the territories. Why then was there another Intifada, even worse, if by your arguments, improving Gaza will stop Hamas?

Well because sovereignity was still an issue and was in the immediate history of those living in the area. Aid was given but generally aid is never sufficent to end poverty (As it doesn't introduce a mechanism to allow the people earn a living - "Give a man a fish") and ultimately an inability to own land, lack of political freedom and education are still forms of poverty. Food is, sadly, just the basics.

Hamas is not the root cause of how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict started but it certainly is perpetuating the conflict.

Well it can be argued either side is perpetuating the conflict - that's the nature of war. But both sides are convinced that to abandon it means certain doom. And to an extent under the current circumstances I'd agree, things need to change before peace can be had.

No, you're missing mine.
Status quo 1948: Maybe we could make peace with the Jews, we weren't always at war.
Then there were several wars and Israeli occupation and Palestinian terrorist attacks. The new generation grew up hating Israel, and thus the status quo changed. That's what I argued before.

Please stop using "Jews" instead of Israel. You're muddying the issue with religion - that's a veryHamas tactic.

I see what you're saying, but my point is if a precedent can be said than another precident can be set. And that the hatred of Israel grew from a destruction of infrastructure, occupation, high casuality warfare and poverty. But that's just subtleties of history - the main point is that change can be delivered and that if we restrict ourselves to a reductionist view then we will miss the core issues.

I think I covered this a few paragraphs above.

Aye.

You're right, and that helps my point. It's easy to get people to be anti-Zionist if they're anti-Semitic.

Well it goes both ways, but that's obvious with anything. Even, and I hate to exhaust this point, the muddying of the Northern Ireland issue by making it Catholics Vs. Protestants or even Ireland Vs. England. The English people actually voted fairly strongly for Home Rule, when allowed to, but Irish hatred was misdirected from the English government to English civilians.

So anyone (Including the opposition) can easily manipulate people's opinions to get them to do what they want and then blame the situation on petty racism. In the Israel example I'd accuse both Hamas and the Israeli state of turning anti-zionism into anti-semitism and then refuting anything critical of Israel as Anti-Semitic. It's also interesting because it hints at another issue, Hamas doesn't neccesarily want to be victorious. Even they know that once the war is over that they will be forgotten.

The IRA and Sinn Fein never got to rule Ireland - they became irrelevant once the strugal was over. You can only hope that their struggle is sincere and with the anarchic nature of modern Hamas it's hard to say!

Reread my post. I never once said that.

Grammar is a fickle beast. I mostly pointed it out because I found the wording funny, chill out.

If the British were planning on holding onto it and then relinquished it when its control became bothersome, then why did the British declare the Balfour Declaration in 1917 before they even had that land?

Really not in the mood for researching British colonial history as I did plenty of it in school (Mostly tedious legislative history, I might add) and because I'm quite tired. I may come back to it but since it's central to neither arguement I'll concede out of laziness for now.

Look, I don't know why the British declared it, but I do know that there was support for Israel before WWII and that Israel was not just an expression of guilt from the Holocaust.

Agreed. Irrefutably so. But, Post WWII Israel has been a difference beast and has acted under the pretenses of being established to protect Jewish people from threats - threats it needs to have to justify its behaviour and existence, really. While you can't pin this on Israel alot of people seem very underinformed and seem to think Israel was formed as a sort of holocaust-guilt-trip. It does however use it quite a bit in its politics, in a disgusting attempt to make it part of Jewish identity (part of a disgusting attempt to make a Jewish identity inherently Israeli, which should never be true).

I'm also going to point out that you've utterly ignored the proof I gave on Israel being not only an externally funded state but an unjust State even towards its own civilians. Please comment on my FULL post in future rather than the parts you find most conveniant.

Same to you.

If I make a fuck up, I own up. We can't dismiss inconveniant parts of the discourse. Does the fact that Israeli is a fairly facist state not change the matters at all? That despite pretending to be this lone defender of an egalitarian society that its actually censorship heavy, is persecuting non Jews within its borders and conducts a fairly nasty military campaign not relevant?

They're trying to get more people to get more power, and encouraging Jews to come gives them a stronger consensus if they can muddy the issues properly - not that I'm saying Ethiopians rescued from the desert aren't the most sceptic, highly educated bunch - and that the US encourages it to give them a stronger political foothold in the Middle East. It's like a positive ethnic cleansing or moving borders for voting territories (Gerrymandering, I think)- rather than remove the dissident voices you just outnumber them.

---

At 5/20/11 07:55 AM, satanbrain wrote: Yes, because when in the beginning of a war, when israel will be fighting US and israel's enemies it will be aided even more.

What war? Also are you aware of the current US President's stance on Israel and Palestine in terms of what the borders should be? Are you aware of the average American voter's understanding and level of caring on the issue? Because you should think about those things before declaring all you need is the US.

In the price of dying?

No, no it is not. Or maybe it is if you only look to one nation to come to your aid.

And the only one truly necessary.

That you have not proved.

Stated and proven intention, it is very easy to state you want to kill only "evil occupiers" instead of evil jew.

I don't deny they have stated they'll kill and remove Jews. But they've also stated their open to peace, stop cherry picking one statement and ignoring the other. Let's be fair and talk about both please.

Peace with israel as a jewish state or peace between two palestinan states?

They clearly said peace with Israel. Let's stop talking about this "jewish state" crap as it's irrelevant to the issue and disingenuous to the make up of Israeli citizenry.

That money.

Accept humanitarian aid is not just money.

Do they really know what hamas does with that money?

You're either ignorant or just bald faced lying to say the only "aid" given is money. That is simply not true.

Thousands of would-be infiltrators tried to infiltrate israel, while attacking soldiers, should the soldiers get killed instead of protecting themselves and israeli citizens?

So yes, the same unsupported numbers, false dilemmas, and all that. Just checking. Like I say, not interested in arguing in circles.

There are governmental investigations which find out if anything like that happens.

I reiterate my question.

so they weren't trained harsh enough, or ethically.

You can teach someone ethics, but that does not mean they will act ethically. This is such a load of bullshit.

and their leader will be killed again, untill either they stop or dead.

So sure of that are we? You can't kill all of them. As long as the conditions exist that breed extremism, you treat a symptom and not the disease.

The "mentality" is protecting civilians, you should kill the terrorist in the price of killing human shield, when it must be so, if it means no one will be killed by this terrorist again.

This is based on false dilemmas and hypotheticals. You argue about morals and ethics, then ignore them when it's convenient to you. You have no room to talk about either of those things then. Also a continuance of re-bracketing.

Yes, but the IDF never used human shields.

I didn't accuse them. I assumed the terrorist would have the Jew human shield.

And terrorists shoot civilians simply to kill them, in most cases when there's not even a soldier around.

Proof?

but you can punish those who choose to do wrong.

You can indeed...but that is not always a deterrent. Ever heard of "recidivism"?

That's the stated name they chose for themselves.

You're speaking on a different issue. I'm not talking about their name, I'm talking about what they've said as to why they hate the US.

Al-qaida. Unless the intelligence doesn't know how to translate.

I think you've misread the article. It pretty clearly establishes the definition of Al-Qaida as "the base" (which is consistent with definitions I've seen) and then lists affiliated groups.

They will once they finish killing every jew in israel.

Assumption.

Once they take over israel they would be "free" to terrorize other places in the world.

How and why? You are so full of shit and ignorant here it's stunning. No one would even allow them to take over Israel. This is just moronic.

That we live? Because of our fault that we're not dead?

That is in no way the reason I stated. Getting very sick of you passively calling me an anti-semite because you're too dishonest to do anything else.

About hamas? Are you saying that the human shields chose to be human shields?

I do not suggest the human shields want to be. But it is clear Hamas was voted in.

If the palestinans really do support hamas they will be harmed by hamas's actions, if they join it they'll be likely killed or imprisoned.

Agreed. But then you have to start asking yourself why they think that's better then living without Hamas.

Written by terrorist-supporters?

No evidence of such a thing, no.

If terrorists could freely enter israel, which they would if everyone could enter, civilians would've been killed.

You have completely ignored the event I asked about. Also you changed the topic under discussion again.

So do the words "human right to property".

Yep, but they don't apply in the way you want it to here. We've been over that.

then terrorist-funder would be better?

No, because you still would use your own ignorance as a basis to apply the label and be wrong.

"Before a day had passed, the torture debate had flared. The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, told Fox News that the success of the hunt for Bin Laden was due to waterboarding".

Cherry picking is fun. Here's some relevant nuggets you missed though:

"But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden's trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. "

and

"But two prisoners who underwent some of the harshest treatment - including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times - repeatedly misled their interrogators about the courier's identity."

Sounds like torture equals fail. This is why you should never cherry pick articles and read them fully before quoting them.

We can know they are reaching terrorist organizations, to prevent it would reach hamas means it preventing it would reach the palestinian government.

Hamas is the Palestinian Government now? Also isn't the whole point of the Gaza Occupation so you can prevent this stuff?

So they purposely let weapons into gaza?

No moron. I'm saying they inspect the boats, not trucks. You don't seem to know how the inspections work, but then claim you do.

So if a nation, hypothetically, would've taken over europe it could supress the nations there, not give them freedom and they could never have their own land again?

If they were conquered and nobody intervened to stop them? Why yes. If Rome hadn't fallen actually...that would have indeed been what happened. You've just perfectly described how empire functions. Whether something is legal is not the same as whether something is ethical or moral.

And it shows that the "mixture" was not enough so that there wouldn't be an homogeneity.

Huh? You argue for ethnic purity...then point to a study that shows that purity doesn't exist.

They would've, do you think we would give it now if the international community "takes it back"?

No, they wouldn't have. Because they didn't have control of it. The British had control, then they gave that control to the first Israeli government and that government has established itself and fought off challenges to it and thus the nation of Israel exists today. That is what happened. That is historical fact. Stop trying to argue with history.

Not with a jewish state.

They said Israel. You've argued Israel is a Jewish State...so yeah, they actually have said they're open to peace with a jewish state. Tacitly yes, but that still counts.

Can he be captured if he doesn't surrender?

Yes.

If he uses every last terrorist he got to attack you and kill you?

Why do you automatically assume he has others with him at the time the capture operation is attempted?

---

At 5/21/11 02:35 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: What war? Also are you aware of the current US President's stance on Israel and Palestine in terms of what the borders should be?

Only if hamas abandon terror, which means, never.

Because you should think about those things before declaring all you need is the US.

All we could ever get is the US, one of your other "allies" shot NATO forces and the rest are asked to reform their political systems.

Or maybe it is if you only look to one nation to come to your aid.

Is it worth weakening yourself so much and strengthening your enemy to receive aid? That's contrary to the reason you need aid at all.

That you have not proved.

Ok, then the only one available.

I don't deny they have stated they'll kill and remove Jews. But they've also stated their open to peace,

With a jewish state or a palestinan one?

stop cherry picking one statement and ignoring the other. Let's be fair and talk about both please.

They clearly said peace with Israel.

Not as a jewish state.

Let's stop talking about this "jewish state" crap

Let's first stop with this "palestinan state" "crap".

as it's irrelevant to the issue and disingenuous to the make up of Israeli citizenry.

What is the definition to "nation of israel"? Can you find one that fits yours?

Accept humanitarian aid is not just money.

but humanitarian aid passage wasn't stopped.

You can teach someone ethics, but that does not mean they will act ethically. This is such a load of bullshit.

If you teach them harsh enough they will, whether you teach them to avoid killing citizens or slaughter them all.

So sure of that are we? You can't kill all of them.

Ever heard about bombardments? We can waut decades and have thousands of innocent killed by terrorists or end it.

As long as the conditions exist that breed extremism, you treat a symptom and not the disease.

Enough forces will kill them eventually, it's a matter of time.

I didn't accuse them. I assumed the terrorist would have the Jew human shield.

Proof?

You wouldn't believe the MFA numbers but they're the only ones i got.

You can indeed...but that is not always a deterrent. Ever heard of "recidivism"?

Then you send them to a military prison.

You're speaking on a different issue. I'm not talking about their name, I'm talking about what they've said as to why they hate the US.

They can say whatever they like, this is only "stated" as much as their names is "stated".

Assumption.

Okay, they'll execute their foreign policy once their done with domestic. They won't risk a revolution.

How and why?

with their resources, with the aid they have received and with more iranian aid.

No one would even allow them to take over Israel.

If lebanon and syrria help them it wouldn't be so easy to overpower hamas.

But it is clear Hamas was voted in.

Was voted, there cannot be peace with hamas becuase hamas wants to destroy israel, if the people support hamas then there could not be any peace.

Agreed. But then you have to start asking yourself why they think that's better then living without Hamas.

Because they hate us. We can defend ourselves, we don't need to fear their actions and research their motives. If they support hamas, they will be harmed by their own actions and they'll deserve it. They will never abandon hamas if it gains them everything it promised.

"But a closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden's trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. "

A small role is still an important one, you don't know what it ultimately acquired.

"But two prisoners who underwent some of the harshest treatment - including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times - repeatedly misled their interrogators about the courier's identity."

And how the interrogators knew they've been misled if not by waterboarding other prisoners?

Hamas is the Palestinian Government now?

Hamas is allied to fatah, the palestinan government.

Also isn't the whole point of the Gaza Occupation so you can prevent this stuff?

If gaza was occupied it was possible. Since gaza isn't, it happens.

If they were conquered and nobody intervened to stop them? Why yes.

And if a nation would've reclaimed it's own land while the empire doesn't want it to, it would be moral?

No, they wouldn't have. Because they didn't have control of it. The British had control,

After other empires had control and they occupied it from the jews.

They said Israel. You've argued Israel is a Jewish State...

They argue they will never acknowledge a jewish state.

Why do you automatically assume he has others with him at the time the capture operation is attempted?

Because he is a leader and his terrorists who follow him will protect their leader. Except an operation who is a bombardment, which can kill him but can also kill human shields he would grab.

---

At 5/22/11 06:01 AM, satanbrain wrote: Only if hamas abandon terror, which means, never.

That doesn't answer either one of my questions. Would you like to try again at answering my questions?

All we could ever get is the US, one of your other "allies" shot NATO forces and the rest are asked to reform their political systems.

What in the hell are you even talking about? Also you have lots of allies other then the US. Either you're ignorant or you're lying again.

Is it worth weakening yourself so much and strengthening your enemy to receive aid? That's contrary to the reason you need aid at all.

That's also a false dilemma! Besides, your prime minister is claiming the US is asking you to "weaken" yourself for peace. But you say all you need is the US. Would you like to talk a little bit about this?

Ok, then the only one available.

That's a complete lie. Here's a list of Israel's current allies:

Scroll down to "Foreign Relations" to see how wrong you are.

With a jewish state or a palestinan one?

Again, they said Israel. They offered no qualifiers.

Not as a jewish state.

They didn't mention it. Also there's still a fair bit of debate about whether or not Israel's essential character is that of a "jewish state" it seems to me.

Let's first stop with this "palestinan state" "crap".

The land itself will be called "Palestine" the inhabitants of this state would be "Palestinians". This is not equivalent to the idea of the land of Israel having an essential Jewish character or functioning as a Jewish homeland. The issues are not one in the same at all.

What is the definition to "nation of israel"? Can you find one that fits yours?

The Nation of Israel is the citizens who occupy the territory known, and legally defined, as Israel. Simple as that. Since that citizenry is not exclusively Jewish I think it's a misnomer and prejudice to only talk about Israel as it relates to Jews. Unless of course you have some belief that a non-Jew Israeli citizen is less of a citizen then a Jewish citizen. I don't think that's the case though, am I right?

but humanitarian aid passage wasn't stopped.

Yes it was. There are clear and numerous examples where Israel in it's occupation of Gaza stopped perfectly legitimate, non-weapon humanitarian supplies from getting through. They have admittedly gotten much better about this, but it does not change that they used to block it, and still make it difficult for it to pass.

If you teach them harsh enough they will, whether you teach them to avoid killing citizens or slaughter them all.

How would slaughtering them all be ethical? You're not talking about teaching, you're talking about brainwashing. What evidence do you have that brainwashing is 100% effective? Because there's a lot of examples that suggest that brainwashing (which really is the end goal of all military training really) is not 100% effective. You are talking out of your ass...again.

Ever heard about bombardments? We can waut decades and have thousands of innocent killed by terrorists or end it.

You. Can't. Kill. All. Of. Them. Terrorism is a hydra, not a snake.

Enough forces will kill them eventually, it's a matter of time.

Ok...you keep living in your delusions. The rest of us who actually understand the situation and the realities of it will continue to just do our thing.

You wouldn't believe the MFA numbers but they're the only ones i got.

You've actually combined two issues together here...and those numbers are not proving that the situations you are presenting are actually occurring. What I see here is mostly a list of IDF forces being killed.

Then you send them to a military prison.

You can't just send any old criminal to a military prison...do you even know what military prisons are and how they're used? Also how is this going to stop recedivism?

They can say whatever they like, this is only "stated" as much as their names is "stated".

But you're the guy who says we can believe what terrorists say as 100% credible and the only evidence we need of their intentions. Why is Hamas telling the truth when they say they want to wipe out Jews, but Al-Qaieda isn't telling the truth when they speak on why they want the US obliterated and it has nothing to do with Jews? Is it because you think terrorists only really ever want to attack Jews?

Okay, they'll execute their foreign policy once their done with domestic. They won't risk a revolution.

Assumption, again.

with their resources, with the aid they have received and with more iranian aid.

So more assumptions. No evidence. No understanding of why Iran would be leery about painting such a large target on themselves. Gotcha.

If lebanon and syrria help them it wouldn't be so easy to overpower hamas.

You assume that lebanon and syrria would do that and risk the very obvious and unabashed backlash that would come when Israel's allies like the US and NATO step in to crush the attempt. You really don't understand anything do you?

Was voted, there cannot be peace with hamas becuase hamas wants to destroy israel, if the people support hamas then there could not be any peace.

Did you ever think the people support Hamas because they think there's no other alternative to protect themselves? No, of course you didn't. You also ignore the fact that Hamas has said they would be open to peace (which I think is bullshit because if there's peace then Palestinians won't perceive a need for Hamas anymore).

Because they hate us.

Or because you guys keep occupying their territory and killing them.

We can defend ourselves, we don't need to fear their actions and research their motives.

Right, because research is for pussies and idiots. So much better to just shoot at anything Palestinian and assume there's no other alternatives. You make me sick.

If they support hamas, they will be harmed by their own actions and they'll deserve it.

Nice attitude. You realize Hamas says the same thing about you and Israel? You make the same arguments as your enemy. But then somehow claim your "better".

They will never abandon hamas if it gains them everything it promised.

Not necessarily. I think Hamas is a means to an end for them and we're seeing in other nations in the region throwing off similar extremist regimes in favor of gaining more personal and individual freedom.

A small role is still an important one, you don't know what it ultimately acquired.

No, if it's a small role, and as they said "at best" meaning it didn't even necessarily play that much into it...then it wasn't really necessary. That's the whole point of the article if you bothered to read it.

And how the interrogators knew they've been misled if not by waterboarding other prisoners?

By testing the information you idiot? If you're looking for something, and I tell you you can find it at a specific location, and you go there and you don't find what you're looking for...isn't that enough to conclude I was lying?

Hamas is allied to fatah, the palestinan government.

Not the same as BEING the government.

If gaza was occupied it was possible. Since gaza isn't, it happens.

It is. Stop it already.

And if a nation would've reclaimed it's own land while the empire doesn't want it to, it would be moral?

We were discussing legal, not moral. I clearly stated this. You're changing the issue now.

After other empires had control and they occupied it from the jews.

They didn't occupy, they conquered it. Big difference.

They argue they will never acknowledge a jewish state.

Perhaps they are starting to see Israel as something other then a Jewish State? More then likely I think they're trying to get some of the heat off themselves though.

Because he is a leader and his terrorists who follow him will protect their leader.

You really think terrorist leaders have their operatives around them at all times? Are you really so dumb as to not know why that would be counter productive?

---

At 5/23/11 01:07 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: What in the hell are you even talking about? Also you have lots of allies other then the US.

look at your news, or unbiased news if yours hid it.

That's also a false dilemma!

Why? If your 'allies' asks you to give up everything to the point when you can't defend yourself, they are not worthy of having.

Would you like to talk a little bit about this?

Would you like to watch Obama's speech to aipac?

Scroll down to "Foreign Relations" to see how wrong you are.

The most important one that aid israel and the only one that will send forces to help defend it.

Again, they said Israel. They offered no qualifiers.

So but what they say, they want israel to become a palestinan state. palestinan "refugees" will move into israel and then israel will become a palestinan state.

Also there's still a fair bit of debate about whether or not Israel's essential character is that of a "jewish state" it seems to me.

Despite the "mixture" "Jewish populations in general are as genetically close to each other as fourth or fifth cousins", it is jewish whether you want it to be or not.

The land itself will be called "Palestine" the inhabitants of this state would be "Palestinians".

True.

This is not equivalent to the idea of the land of Israel having an essential Jewish character or functioning as a Jewish homeland.

So because palestine is not their homeland they'll move into israel? But then, why is this land must be given in the first place?

The Nation of Israel is the citizens who occupy the territory known, and legally defined, as Israel. Simple as that.

dictionary definition? At least one?

Yes it was. There are clear and numerous examples

Which are?

where Israel in it's occupation of Gaza stopped perfectly legitimate, non-weapon humanitarian supplies from getting through.

Which are what again? Weapons meant to kill only israelis?

They have admittedly gotten much better about this, but it does not change that they used to block it, and still make it difficult for it to pass.

It's not hard at all, onlt takes some minutes.

How would slaughtering them all be ethical?

It wouldn't and i mean by that that even unethical things can be taught.

You. Can't. Kill. All. Of. Them. Terrorism is a hydra, not a snake.

Following your theory that they will all turn terrorist if not given what they wish without effort, massive bombardments can be used. Or even nuclear rockets.

Ok...you keep living in your delusions.

These terrorists will come by foor right? So if the are is mined they will die once they pass. There are many effective machines for killing.

The rest of us who actually understand the situation and the realities of it will continue to just do our thing.

Fantasize you can stop terrorism by aiding it? Because that's not what the US is doing and i think terror is prevented.

You've actually combined two issues together here...and those numbers are not proving that the situations you are presenting are actually occurring. What I see here is mostly a list of IDF forces being killed.

No it isn't mostly IDF forces, they're almost all civilians. The idf soldiers are named and not all the civilians are, that's the difference.

You can't just send any old criminal to a military prison...do you even know what military prisons are and how they're used?

"The Israeli Military Prison is a prison for guarding soldiers who committed crimes during their service. It is estimated that 15,000-18,000 Israeli soldiers (not to be confused with Palestinian detainees) go through an Israeli military prison or detention center every year."

Also how is this going to stop recedivism?

How can they crime if they sit in prison?

But you're the guy who says we can believe what terrorists say as 100% credible and the only evidence we need of their intentions.

We also have evidence based on their actions, which are terrorizing civilians.

Why is Hamas telling the truth when they say they want to wipe out Jews, but Al-Qaieda isn't telling the truth when they speak on why they want the US obliterated and it has nothing to do with Jews?

when did they say that it has nothing to do with the jews? When they tried to bomb a synagogue?

Is it because you think terrorists only really ever want to attack Jews?

Most of the extremist islamic terrorist are.

Assumption, again.

Based on the history and logic.

So more assumptions. No evidence. No understanding of why Iran would be leery about painting such a large target on themselves. Gotcha.

Because they wish to have arab countries ruled by sharia, which will actually be by their own priests?

You assume that lebanon

Which is ruled by hizzbullah, a terrorist organization who had attacked hamas and didn't face US or NATO back then.

and syrria

Whose leader want to inflame the israeli border and gain support.

would do that and risk the very obvious and unabashed backlash that would come when Israel's allies like the US and NATO step in to crush the attempt.

That depends if US and NATO won't be facing other armies and couldn't leave to israel.

Did you ever think the people support Hamas because they think there's no other alternative to protect themselves?

They have freewill, if they mistake thinking that only hamas is the option it's their fault.

Or because you guys keep occupying

Hamas rules gaza, or used to rule only gaza. which isn't occupied.

their territory and killing them.

Killing terrorists who are trying to kill us?

Right, because research is for pussies and idiots.

If by "pussies and idiots" you mean people who think they must be wrong for not losing, then yes.

So much better to just shoot at anything Palestinian

Which by your theory is a terrorist.

Nice attitude. You realize Hamas says the same thing about you and Israel? You make the same arguments as your enemy. But then somehow claim your "better".

Hamas terrorize civilians, the IDF doesn't. Hamas kill civilians for the sake of killing and the IDF protect civilians. The israelis are practiced in democracy and know their actions have consequences, how could the palestinans ever be if they won't take responsibility?

I think Hamas is a means to an end for them and we're seeing in other nations in the region throwing off similar extremist regimes in favor of gaining more personal and individual freedom.

Freedom to raise even more extremist regime?

That's the whole point of the article if you bothered to read it.

The article tried to prove it and failed, i just used the evidence i found in there.

By testing the information you idiot?

and risk a failed operation? (Which was never heard about by the way).

If you're looking for something, and I tell you you can find it at a specific location, and you go there and you don't find what you're looking for...isn't that enough to conclude I was lying?

The US was only 55% sure bin laden was where he was, does that mean that the one who gave them the information was lying?

Not the same as BEING the government.

Fatah rules unitedly with hamas, they're part of the governing. There weren't elections but they still the part of the leadership.

They didn't occupy, they conquered it. Big difference.

Can you explain why the conquered it and didn't occupy? Because they were stronger?

Perhaps they are starting to see Israel as something other then a Jewish State?

A palestinian state.

More then likely I think they're trying to get some of the heat off themselves though.

So you are claiming the palestinans are more extremist than hamas?

You really think terrorist leaders have their operatives around them at all times?

Bin laden had some of his operatives. Or the SEALs killed a few people and planted their bodies in the scene.

---

At 5/23/11 01:07 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yes it was. There are clear and numerous examples where Israel in it's occupation of Gaza stopped perfectly legitimate, non-weapon humanitarian supplies from getting through. They have admittedly gotten much better about this, but it does not change that they used to block it, and still make it difficult for it to pass.

No, there aren't, unless you can find instances when Israel itself cleared the shipments but held them up for no reason other than to make the Gazans suffer. Israel has the right to let it's own security forces have the final word on what is and isn't legitimate.

Did you ever think the people support Hamas because they think there's no other alternative to protect themselves?

Protect themselves from what? The IDF? It's impossible for the Palestinians to defend themselves militarily. Supporting militants whose actions provoke attacks is the worst possible way to safeguard yourself.

Right, because research is for pussies and idiots. So much better to just shoot at anything Palestinian and assume there's no other alternatives. You make me sick.

The alternative is to submit to their demands and legitimize decades of terrorism. No country is going to waver in the face of aggression, especially when its survival isn't threatened in the slightest. If Hamas renounced terrorism, then it'd be far less humiliating for Israel to make concessions.

If they support hamas, they will be harmed by their own actions and they'll deserve it.

Nice attitude. You realize Hamas says the same thing about you and Israel? You make the same arguments as your enemy. But then somehow claim your "better".

He is better, government and society aside, by virtue of how his country fights wars. Unlike Hamas, Israel does not deliberately target civilians to "send a message." It tries to focus its power against those directly responsible for hostilities. That doesn't mean the Gazans should be protected from every single consequence of war, though, like economic stagnation from the blockade. If they truly do have a voice in the government but the conflict continues, then their suffering is the price of pride.

If gaza was occupied it was possible. Since gaza isn't, it happens.

It is. Stop it already.

Not in any meaningful sense of the word. Most of the criteria for occupation don't make sense when applied to very tiny countries almost totally geographically surrounded by an enemy state. Even in a state of peace, Israel would still technically control Gaza's utilities since it doesn't have enough power and water plants. In war, it's perfectly legal to vigorously defend one's borders on both sides, and attempt to blockade the enemy country. Gaza doesn't have any aircraft so it doesn't have any airspace to be occupied to begin with. It's a perfect illustration of how outdated international laws of conflict are.

We were discussing legal, not moral. I clearly stated this. You're changing the issue now.

Legal arguments are totally academic. They never have and never will be respected enough to decide any conflict of worth, especially when the sides are so incredibly lopsided.