Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Rommel, this conflict is not Muslim vs. Jew, it is Palestinian Fanatic Groups vs the state of Israel.

At 3/2/08 07:01 PM, RommelTJ wrote: In any case, I see your point. My rule is treat others as you would like to be treated. "Sociopathic Religious Killer" are indeed fucked up in the head, but they are fucked in the head for a reason.

Yes, because the world's superpower is a non-muslim nation.

At 3/2/08 06:57 PM, n64kid wrote: No one is pro-killing except Muslim fanatics. I've criticized you for taking the Obama approach, calling for peace without any realistic solutions. The UN has failed, expecially since the Sudan is on the commision of human rights while the crisis in Darfur is happening in Sudan's own country, primarily by Sudan. Peace talks haven't worked, and Israel giving back land hasn;t worked. It's clear that the only peace agreement with radical islam is to wipe not Israel, but the Jews off the map.

Rommel, I would like to hear any solution from you that hasn't been tried and failed miserably to remedy this problem in the middle east.

The reason why the UN failes at Darfur is the same reason why it failed at Rwanda: veto power. China and the United States (and the other 3 permanent members) have disproportionate power in the UN.

One solution would be to get rid of permanent status of countries and veto power in the United Nations.

yes, the French weren't doing anything in Rwanda. However, their very presence saved thousands of people.

At 3/2/08 07:01 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Stuff

Well, in any case, I not only see yer point and respect yer opinion, I also thank you for respecting mine.

At 3/2/08 07:08 PM, RommelTJ wrote:
The reason why the UN failes at Darfur is the same reason why it failed at Rwanda: veto power. China and the United States (and the other 3 permanent members) have disproportionate power in the UN.

One solution would be to get rid of permanent status of countries and veto power in the United Nations.

yes, the French weren't doing anything in Rwanda. However, their very presence saved thousands of people.

The UN is more of a symbol where a bunch of countries agree or don't agree with a major decision. The arab league supports it's member countries including Sudan. It took roughly 3 years for the UN to vote in favor of recognizing that there was a conflict. (Assuming the genocide started in 2000 when the conflict first started) But the crisis according to wiki and the UN started in 2003 and is still going on. The UN has no real power and whats debated shows that this is a non credible two-bit organization.

I know my sources are old, and it's hard to get online sources from over 4 years ago, but do you have anything explaining how thousands were saved just from the French standing around doing nothing?

Also I favor the veto power because most countries are nuts and don't know what they are talking about. They base their position on feelings and suffer from the fault of a band wagon. Some vote a certain way just to avoid arguing. Without a superpower with the veto power, a large voting bloc could call for radical action or unneccesary spending to support terrorism. It's happened, Syria has tried to funnel UN funds into Hamas' pockets. The problem is that some members of the United nations don't want to be united with many nations of the world.

On top of that, rediculous topics have been debated at the UN including whether the smartest American was dumber than the dumbest citizen of a non US country... which almost was agreed. Whether the world population should be cut in half, which was voted and agreed that it should be. There have also been racist and anti semetic presentations where Canada was the first to simply walk out, followed by the US and Israel. The majority of that little respect that I have for Canada comes straight from their actions in the UN.
UN sucks
This one too

Any other viable solutions, Rommel?

At 3/2/08 07:10 PM, PantyWipe wrote:

At 3/2/08 07:01 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Stuff

Well, in any case, I not only see yer point and respect yer opinion, I also thank you for respecting mine.

See, if people were like me and PantyWipe, we would be living in peace.

Solution: Rub panties in everyone's faces.

At 3/2/08 02:29 PM, RommelTJ wrote: cellardoor6:
If I called your mother a whore, you have the right to punch me in the face. This is proportionate punishment.

If I called your mother a whore, you do not have the right to kill me. This is disproportionate.
Hamas brought this upon themselves, but the Israeli retaliation was disproportionate.

Completely wacked out, inaccurate analogy.

How about we put it in real world terms? Let's say I'm the Israeli military and you're Hamas.

If you launch rockets at civilian areas in my country, I have the right to launch missiles and drop bombs on those rocket launch sites in order to protect my own people. If YOU put the rocket launching sites and other military assets in the immediate vicinity of innocent civilians, and they die in the reactionary strikes, it is YOUR fault that they died. YOU endangered your people by positioning your forces near civilian areas when you started the exchange. YOU used your own people as human shields and cannon fodder for propaganda. I don't have to put the lives of your people before the lives of my own, it is my duty to protect my people first and foremost. Therefore it is your fault for the civilian lives that are lost, you exploited and endangered civilians in order to fight me, I fought you in order to protect my own civilians.

It's a fundamental difference that has been shown time and time again in the entire conflict. Israel protects its own people, Palestinians INTENTIONALLY use their own people, including children, as suicide bombers and human shields for the purpose of attacking Israel, both tactically and with strategic-level propaganda.

RE: The opinion poll and the killings of children and women. Those are not lies.

The opinion poll may be true, but it's probably taken out of context. Of course Israelis WANT a ceasefire, of course they want the fighting to stop, but they are also probably wary of the fact that every single ceasefire and peace agreement ever made between the Palestinians and the Israelis has been broken by the Palestinians.

You can keep pretending that Israel is a saint. Of course, Hamas targets more civilians than Israel.

Yes, and the civilians that die from Israeli bombs were killed because Israel targets Hamas, and Hamas is filled with fucking cowards who don't give a shit about their own people and intentionally endanger them because their deaths will help their propaganda campaign against Israel. Hamas WANTS Israel to kill innocent civilians, they specifically engineer castrophes

RE: Rwanda. It was a genocide. 800,000 people were killed in less than 4 months. Do you really think that the US shouldn't have been involved?

If the US did get involved, people would have protested that. YOU would have complained about it. You would have complained about the US sticking its nose in other countries' business and use it to supposedly prove American imperialism.

The US had no interest in Rwanda, the US had no ability to unilaterally stop a genocide. Countries that complain about the US not intervening in Rwanda are the same idiots that now criticize the US for intervening in other countries.

The US practically demanded that they be pulled out and vetoes any action because of the humiliation of Somalia.

Prove it.

Oh and by the way...

So... is Israel to blame when those children get caught in the crossfire even though the militants SURROUND themselves with them?

At 3/1/08 11:30 PM, RommelTJ wrote: The US even to this day refuses to refer to the actions as a genocide.

Because the term "genocide" refers to slaughter of an entire species, not a subset of that species or a particular group of people. Using the term is a misnomer that is used by people like you to try and drum of feelings of pity for your side of the argument.

The Dodo Bird was the victim of genocide, the Rwandan's were not.

The Rwandan Rebel group eventually won, but only after 800,000 innocent Tutsis were killed.

So they solved the problem themselves without aid... and you're still bitching?

If the UN had kept the French soldiers in Rwanda, without even getting involved they would've saved at least half.

But we won't know if that is true or not, because it never happened, now did it?

Yes, but just because you have the power of the purse doesn't mean you own the world. It is called the United Nations. 5 countries shouldn't have the power of veto. It is not really representative.

You're not concerned with whether or not 5 countries have the ability to veto, you're concerned with whether or not WE have the veto. You want us involved in every little school ground conflict world round, you want us to pay the bill for it all, and you don't want us to have the ability to say "Nope, not a good idea." You want our money and our military strength and for the rest of us to just sit back and shut up. That is not representative of anything short of the U.S. playing the role of the United Nation's mob enforcer in the world.... the only difference is that we're the one's paying to break knees while the rest of the world sits around and bitches at us.

I believe in peace.

No, you believe that the U.S. should be the the world police and world pariah both at the same time.

Am I really the only one that cares for human life?

You don't give a damn about human life, you're only worried about you're own warped viewpoint that's been force fed to you by biased sources and playing yourself off as a free thinking humanitarian for espousing them. You're a joke.

technically if you called Cellar's mother a whore he would not have the right to punch you in the face. it would be understandable that he punched you in the face but he still would not have the right.

alot of the terrorist attacks perpetrated against western culture is due to this conflict. Palestinian groups blame the west for being kicked out of Israel (i know this is a simplified view but im too tired to go into detail), sending troops in will only worsen this, we should be helping Israel as they are being attacked and are fighting back. This is not a war like WW2 this is very different it is fanatics versus government, terrorists against an army.

Question 1: There's conflict in the middle east. One side wants to exterminate jews, but claim its against the government, the other wants to defend itself while looking back at the rest of the world and making sure they won't get criticized for it. Land has been offered, but isn't excepted. Idetify, explain and justify 3 action steps you would take to fix this situation.

At 3/2/08 07:30 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Solution: Rub panties in everyone's faces.

Good god I love you.

At 3/2/08 10:06 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/1/08 11:30 PM, RommelTJ wrote: The US even to this day refuses to refer to the actions as a genocide.

Because the term "genocide" refers to slaughter of an entire species, not a subset of that species or a particular group of people. Using the term is a misnomer that is used by people like you to try and drum of feelings of pity for your side of the argument.

The Dodo Bird was the victim of genocide, the Rwandan's were not.

By your definition, the slaughter of Armenians or Jews during their respective time frames were not genocides. So be it.

The Rwandan Rebel group eventually won, but only after 800,000 innocent Tutsis were killed.

So they solved the problem themselves without aid... and you're still bitching?

I'm not "bitching." I am pointing out that 800,000 people died.

If the UN had kept the French soldiers in Rwanda, without even getting involved they would've saved at least half.

But we won't know if that is true or not, because it never happened, now did it?

Yes, we do. When the genocide started, thousands of Tutsis took refuge in UN military bases. These were churches, schools, soccer stadiums, etc that the French were occupying. They were safe there. The minute the French left, it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

...only that The Hutus used Machetes. Can you imagine dieing by Machete? Women and Children were killed. Give me a break. Are you really that callous of a human being?

Yes, but just because you have the power of the purse doesn't mean you own the world. It is called the United Nations. 5 countries shouldn't have the power of veto. It is not really representative.

You're not concerned with whether or not 5 countries have the ability to veto, you're concerned with whether or not WE have the veto. You want us involved in every little school ground conflict world round, you want us to pay the bill for it all, and you don't want us to have the ability to say "Nope, not a good idea." You want our money and our military strength and for the rest of us to just sit back and shut up. That is not representative of anything short of the U.S. playing the role of the United Nation's mob enforcer in the world.... the only difference is that we're the one's paying to break knees while the rest of the world sits around and bitches at us.

No, I am concerned with the entire United Nations. The same shit is happening in Darfur. A new genocide is occuring and nothing is being done because China will veto any proposed action.

It took Steven Spielberg to make a difference.

I believe in peace.

No, you believe that the U.S. should be the the world police and world pariah both at the same time.

No. The UN should be the world police. The US Army shouldn't get involved in any conflict by itself.

Am I really the only one that cares for human life?

You don't give a damn about human life, you're only worried about you're own warped viewpoint that's been force fed to you by biased sources and playing yourself off as a free thinking humanitarian for espousing them. You're a joke.

Let me ask you this. What do I gain from all this? What do I gain from you yelling at me?

I worry about human life. I called my Representatives, and I was even mocked for that. What exactly do you want from me? Please tell me how I can stop being a joke.

At 3/2/08 10:17 PM, SolInvictus wrote: technically if you called Cellar's mother a whore he would not have the right to punch you in the face. it would be understandable that he punched you in the face but he still would not have the right.

It would be well within your right under the first amendment to call cd6's mother a whore, however, it is well within your right under that same first amendment to be held fully responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Now if you want to act like a spoiled child and do something like that, don't be surprised and run around whining about how YOUR rights have been violated when when your dealt with a good stiff belt in the mouth. You acted like a spoiled brat, and you got what you deserved.

At 3/2/08 10:43 PM, RommelTJ wrote: By your definition, the slaughter of Armenians or Jews during their respective time frames were not genocides. So be it.

Genocide does not apply in those situations because it does not describe what happened. It's a bullshit tactic.

Yes, we do.

No, actually, we don't know that, it's just a matter of personal opinion on your part.

Can you imagine dieing by Machete?

Depends on how sharp it is, and what they hit. Generally when you're stabbed you only feel the initial entry wound and a slight burning sensation, but this is a machette we're talking about, so chances were they were taking head's (instantaneous death) or severing major arteries and causing them to bleed out in a manner of moments. The shock of loosing a limb would only be brief as blood loss would bring about a euphoric state and you would eventually slip into a sleep you wouldn't wake up from.

But since it was a mass killing, I imagine it would be a pretty sharp machette, so the pain would be considerably less than if they were just chopping at me with a dull instrument. 800,000 is a lot of people to kill just by chopping them to bits, somebody out there HAD to have been handy with a mill file.

Women and children were killed.

And?

Are you really that callous of a human being?

In matter such as these I am, because I don't see the point in expending energy wringing my hands about things I have absolutely no control over... especially considering that the Rwandan massacre happened when I was 9 years old and was vetoed by the first Black President of the United States.

No, I am concerned with the entire United Nations.

Then why are you just now shifting the focus to China?

No. The UN should be the world police. The US Army shouldn't get involved in any conflict by itself.

Which means you approve of us getting involved where the UN sees fit we should get involved, which reiterates what I just said about us being the Mob Hitman for the UN.

What do I gain from you yelling at me?

You're subjecting yourself to the viewpoints that appose your own, so I suppose in a roundabout way you are enlightening yourself.

I worry about human life. I called my Representatives, and I was even mocked for that. What exactly do you want from me? Please tell me how I can stop being a joke.

You can quit playing the rest of us off as careless monsters for not wholeheartedly agreeing with every letter of your post, for starters....

At 3/2/08 10:45 PM, Proteas wrote: Now if you want to act like a spoiled child and do something like that, don't be surprised and run around whining about how YOUR rights have been violated when when your dealt with a good stiff belt in the mouth. You acted like a spoiled brat, and you got what you deserved.

obviously, but the fact still stands that it would likely be considered assault. which is why it is a poor analogy for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
we are always accountable for our actions and words but obviously to different degrees.

and it would be pretty damn low to press charges after getting punched in the face for insulting someone's mother.

I would also like to point out that "and etc" is redundant.

Lol, so... if these children die, it's Israel's fault right?

by the way, that's not a peace sign in the Arab world, it means victory.

At 3/2/08 11:18 PM, SolInvictus wrote: which is why it is a poor analogy for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Then why did you make it?

Being Muslim myself here is my own take on the whole thing:

Israel is an occupation, a terrorist state, a goyim state who tortures, abuses, subjigates and humiliates the Palestinians because of religious grounds. The Palestinians simply want their damn land back, not because of religion. They have every right to resist and rebel against their oppressors by all means... within limits.

Now, when it comes to attacking civilians on both sides by both sides, it's wrong. It's terrorism. Period. What Hamas does to Israelis is wrong, what Israel does to Palestinian civilians is wrong. I personally don't believe that Israel should exist, but it doesn't mean that the Jews should be driven into the sea or killing civilians is okay. In fact, Israel is not even Jewish to begin with because it's breaking every single commandment laid down by God alone. The Palestinians are doing what is their right, though they're attacking the wrong people. Civilians are civilians, and their support or opposition to whatever happens to the Palestinians is between them and God.

I also believe that since the Holy Land is sacred to both my people and the Palestinians, there aught to be peaceful coexistence. The reason this is not happening is because of retaliation and retaliation and retaliation carried out on civilians rather than the soldiers and leaders. Driving the Jews to the sea will not work and is un-Islamic since we are forbidden to drive others out of their homes. Creating a seperate state will not work.

Also, Israel was set up by evangelical Christian missionaries in an attempt to quicken the second coming of Jesus Christ (pbuh), an event that won't happen unless, allegedly, the Jews control the Holy Land. Thus the reason for so much money being pumped into Israel by mainly European-dominated nations, especially the US, which has the largest and longest-existing clusterfuck of delusional, psychotic, fanatical, paranoid, apocalyptic blood-thirsty mock-Christians the world has ever known. I personally believe that every people deserves a refuge, though the establishment of Israel was wrong from the start. Cleansing entire villages of people in the name of creating a one-religion theocracy is odious to the eyes of a truly merciful God, who is allowing this to happen because 1) it's our shit, we fix it, and 2) it would violate our freedom of will for Him/Her to interfere with it, and 3) in time, people realize that what they would have done was wrong and repent, so God gives us time to realize what we do is wrong, repent and amend. But back away from the religious nature of this.

I say that in order for this to go through, the world must act militarily. There aught to be an invasion and force both sides to lower their arms, and to strip everyone of their guns, bombs, weapons of all and any kind. We aught not to do this guns blazing but rather careful execution. You can't kill a kid because he's hucking stones at soldiers. It's an act of reisistance to occupation and that is their right but we aught to disarm everyone and leave no carnage of civilians or destruction of ancient relics. The place called the Holy Land belongs to God and God alone, and too much blood has been shed on what is supposed to be sacred ground by the worst of creation, human beings.

There is no question that Israel kills, rapes, tortures, torments and suffers innocent civilians in the name of "defense". I'm also pissed and sick about people blaming the Palestinians, as in the civilians, for the attacks. Even babies, even fetuses still clinging to the inner wall of their womb, a supposed place of comfort in hell on earth.

Forceful disarmament, a renunciation of violence, a right of return, the dismantling and smashing of the armies, and a union between peoples to co-exist peacefully in a land sacred to both nations. The Christ-fuckers will surely go insane over this, and that's good.

No wonder we Muslims are forbidden to punish by fire. It is torture and, when applied to bombs, it attacks innocent lives.

At 3/2/08 11:50 PM, mikailus wrote: Being Muslim myself here is my own take on the whole thing:

Israel is an occupation, a terrorist state, a goyim state who tortures, abuses, subjigates and humiliates the Palestinians because of religious grounds. The Palestinians simply want their damn land back, not because of religion. They have every right to resist and rebel against their oppressors by all means... within limits.

Israel was there long before the muslim religion ever started. Goyim=opposite of Israel. I think you were also fed propoganda lies. "Palestinians" have one hell of a history that doesn't even involve the land of palestine, they are arabs who were just dumped there to keep Jews at a minority. They got the name "Palestinians" by the Arab league in the 1960s as a tool to think "Oh hey they're palestinians, they MUST be from palestine. But this simply isn't the case. I have seen too many Jewish prayer books from the ottoman empire to 1947 calling it a Palestinian Prayer book for passover (haggadah) And how could these palestinians who have a much higher standard of living in Israel than they do in territories call Israel their oppressors? Israel supports gaza and the west bank economically but not politically anymore, you can hardly call it oppressive.

Now, when it comes to attacking civilians on both sides by both sides, it's wrong. It's terrorism. Period. What Hamas does to Israelis is wrong, what Israel does to Palestinian civilians is wrong. I personally don't believe that Israel should exist, but it doesn't mean that the Jews should be driven into the sea or killing civilians is okay. In fact, Israel is not even Jewish to begin with because it's breaking every single commandment laid down by God alone. The Palestinians are doing what is their right, though they're attacking the wrong people. Civilians are civilians, and their support or opposition to whatever happens to the Palestinians is between them and God.

Israel is pretty damn Jewish to begin with. You don't know what you're talking about. Besides, the palestinians shoot themselves in the foot, name one conflict that was started because of Israeli force.

I also believe that since the Holy Land is sacred to both my people and the Palestinians, there aught to be peaceful coexistence. The reason this is not happening is because of retaliation and retaliation and retaliation carried out on civilians rather than the soldiers and leaders. Driving the Jews to the sea will not work and is un-Islamic since we are forbidden to drive others out of their homes. Creating a seperate state will not work.

Israel tried, Muslims didn't accept. Israel tried again, same thing. Israel is at war with a muslim group/country an average every 5 years since it was created. Israel never started any of them. You cannot be sane and support Israel's opposition claiming that Israel is a warmongerer.

Also, Israel was set up by evangelical Christian missionaries in an attempt to quicken the second coming of Jesus Christ (pbuh), an event that won't happen unless, allegedly, the Jews control the Holy Land. Thus the reason for so much money being pumped into Israel by mainly European-dominated nations, especially the US, which has the largest and longest-existing clusterfuck of delusional, psychotic, fanatical, paranoid, apocalyptic blood-thirsty mock-Christians the world has ever known. I personally believe that every people deserves a refuge, though the establishment of Israel was wrong from the start. Cleansing entire villages of people in the name of creating a one-religion theocracy is odious to the eyes of a truly merciful God, who is allowing this to happen because 1) it's our shit, we fix it, and 2) it would violate our freedom of will for Him/Her to interfere with it, and 3) in time, people realize that what they would have done was wrong and repent, so God gives us time to realize what we do is wrong, repent and amend. But back away from the religious nature of this.

It was set up due to the British mandate in a zionist movement that started in 1911. Jews were pushed out of Europe, pushed out of Africa, pushed out of the middle east, then out of Europe again, so Israel seemed to be the solution.

I say that in order for this to go through, the world must act militarily. There aught to be an invasion and force both sides to lower their arms, and to strip everyone of their guns, bombs, weapons of all and any kind. We aught not to do this guns blazing but rather careful execution. You can't kill a kid because he's hucking stones at soldiers. It's an act of reisistance to occupation and that is their right but we aught to disarm everyone and leave no carnage of civilians or destruction of ancient relics. The place called the Holy Land belongs to God and God alone, and too much blood has been shed on what is supposed to be sacred ground by the worst of creation, human beings.

Bad idea, palestinians and other muslim groups will just suicide bomb anyone who interferes. You also forget that those rock throwing kids were throwing large rocks and boulders that KILLED israeli soldiers, and for the most part, the israeli's DID NOT fire back. Act of resistance or pure hatred? May I remind you of Rabin's plan of giving palestinians 97% of the land they wanted back in 1994, including making Jerusalem a muslim capital? What happened? Palestinians did not accept, which makes it clear palestinians want nothing more than to kill jews.

There is no question that Israel kills, rapes, tortures, torments and suffers innocent civilians in the name of "defense". I'm also pissed and sick about people blaming the Palestinians, as in the civilians, for the attacks. Even babies, even fetuses still clinging to the inner wall of their womb, a supposed place of comfort in hell on earth.

I question the rape torment and torture part. Also palestinian militants should not hide themselves among civilians if they really cared about their own people and not about making Israel look bad.

Forceful disarmament, a renunciation of violence, a right of return, the dismantling and smashing of the armies, and a union between peoples to co-exist peacefully in a land sacred to both nations. The Christ-fuckers will surely go insane over this, and that's good.

Israeli's don't start shit, dismantle the palestinians and watch how the Israeli's will accept them and drop their own weapons.

No wonder we Muslims are forbidden to punish by fire. It is torture and, when applied to bombs, it attacks innocent lives.

Are you saying muslims are hypocrites?

Regarding the hypocrites part, yes. There are hypocrites in every religion. Even atheists, some of whom assume that in order to solve the problem of religion, it should be banned, and that would involve a lot of killing, destruction of buildings, etc. which pretty much is self-defeating. Also, we happen to be human beings. We err, flaw, and sin. We are not perfect. Only idiots assume perfection, and only those who are truly perfect do not believe they are perfect themselves. And just because I assume myself to be imperfect, it doesn't mean I am.

And Palestinians would not accuse the other nations of interference if they're also dismantling Israel's army. This hatred stuff is nothing but hatred itself. I'm not advocating hatred myself, being that I'm Muslim myself. Nor am I spewing anti-Semitism.

And the idea that Palestinians living in a higher standard of living is just a myth. They are compelled to live in the gutter in their own land by a bunch of crackers who are re-living the Crusades, though they have become fodder for the Christ-fuckers.

And boulders? What about the scenario or the situation that pulled it off to begin with? All this revenge stuff makes me sick at heart and in my stomach.

At 3/3/08 12:25 AM, mikailus wrote: Regarding the hypocrites part, yes. There are hypocrites in every religion. Even atheists, some of whom assume that in order to solve the problem of religion, it should be banned, and that would involve a lot of killing, destruction of buildings, etc. which pretty much is self-defeating. Also, we happen to be human beings. We err, flaw, and sin. We are not perfect. Only idiots assume perfection, and only those who are truly perfect do not believe they are perfect themselves. And just because I assume myself to be imperfect, it doesn't mean I am.

And Palestinians would not accuse the other nations of interference if they're also dismantling Israel's army. This hatred stuff is nothing but hatred itself. I'm not advocating hatred myself, being that I'm Muslim myself. Nor am I spewing anti-Semitism.

People people have their priorities, it's unfair to make someone see the world through there point of view, but I believe there is common ground that rational people can stand on. As a muslim, do you understand that Israel does not target Palestinian civilians, and the deaths caused by such is because terrorist factions send attacks from heavily dense civilian areas? That's basically what the point of this thread is, whether Israel is purposely doing these acts or not. So I ask you, taking everything from this entire thread into account, including sources, that civilians are not their targets?

PLUS dismantling one side is not fair, and is unbalanced, so dismantle both sides.

Also, that's God's land. It doesn't belong to anyone, and God can expel who He/She desires, Jews or Muslims or Christians. She/He doesn't give a fuck, really, and we can't tell if something of this nature is divinely inspired because human beings are shit when it comes to making decisions.

Also, the Arabs happened to have been living there even during the Ottoman period, and long before that. I'm not here to contest the existence of the Jewish people, since they are older that my faith. But the Jews were pushed out of Jerusalem sometime in the early century AD by Rome.

Of course they're targeted! Doesn't make it right!

At 3/3/08 12:34 AM, mikailus wrote: PLUS dismantling one side is not fair, and is unbalanced, so dismantle both sides.

Telling a side that never started anything isn't fair either.

Also, that's God's land. It doesn't belong to anyone, and God can expel who He/She desires, Jews or Muslims or Christians. She/He doesn't give a fuck, really, and we can't tell if something of this nature is divinely inspired because human beings are shit when it comes to making decisions.

In the jewish faith, israel is the land of milk and honey. It is the promised land that God said that they may live their in peace.

Also, the Arabs happened to have been living there even during the Ottoman period, and long before that. I'm not here to contest the existence of the Jewish people, since they are older that my faith. But the Jews were pushed out of Jerusalem sometime in the early century AD by Rome.

Jews have always been in Israel, its just that some of those times they were a majority, and some a minority. Never a 0% population. It seems you admit Jewish presense in the time of the Roman empire, so if it is against your religion to kick people out of their homes, let alone their homeland, then why are you against Israel?

At 3/3/08 12:34 AM, mikailus wrote: PLUS dismantling one side is not fair, and is unbalanced, so dismantle both sides.

Also, that's God's land. It doesn't belong to anyone, and God can expel who He/She desires, Jews or Muslims or Christians.

In that case, wouldn't you have to come to the conclusion that the Holy Land belongs to the Jews? Considering the miraculous victories the Jews had against the combined forces of Muslim countries? In that case, wouldn't it have been the will of God that the Muslims lost control over the Holy Land?

Because after all, under the Israeli system, Muslims are still free to follow their religion. There is equal rights in Israel, the same can't be said about the blood-thirsty Palestinians who would start beheading Jews and Christians if they regained control over the land that Israel now controls.

Also, the Arabs happened to have been living there even during the Ottoman period, and long before that. I'm not here to contest the existence of the Jewish people, since they are older that my faith. But the Jews were pushed out of Jerusalem sometime in the early century AD by Rome.

And now they've returned... so who has the right to return? The Israelis or the Palestinians? Does the person who was first wronged get the right, or the person who was more recently wronged? If you say the latter, then what about the Jews and Christians that live there that were born there? Would they being born there more recently override the right the Palestinians have to the land, even if most of them weren't born there?

At 3/3/08 12:35 AM, mikailus wrote: Of course they're targeted! Doesn't make it right!

Way to lose credibility. The IDF doesn't taget civilians. If Muslims really cared about there own people, they would move the warzone to where civilians aren't, rather than simply letting their kids get caught in the cross fire. Also, take a look at the suicide bombing child with the Victory hand sign. Civilian or terrorist?