Who else saw the "Birth of Israel" on TV on Sunday? (BBC)
-
randprin wrote:
if the israeli air force really wanted to pound the place there would be no hezbullah people left around the place to offer any resistance.
Oh thats so tough sounding. Makes you feel good doesnt it?
randprin wrote:
i ask you to prove your points, with a credible source
496 sources found on google. Help youself.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
If Israel wanted Palestine destroyed, they could simply break off all contact and sweep through with their army
I think they are happy just to keep them under submission, and they certainly do that. But historically, they have certainly done worse, perhaps before they had to worry about negative press, or under different leadership ?
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
From what I have seen when Israel gives them some leeway, they violence tends to increase. Israel has removed settlers from some areas--by force even. Yet rockets keep getting sent into Israel.
New feature! Scroll down to see CP offenders! Current rant: "The 50 Greatest Comedy Skits of All-Time!" http://craptasticnation.blogspot.com/[^]
-
So it didnt happen. Is that what you are saying? Publicly?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So it didnt happen. Is that what you are saying? Publicly?
where did i say that?! i said israel didn't carpet bombed south lebanon (which, judging by the regional political and social behavious, it should have) but used selective targeting and as a result of that had to deal with hezbullah militants when they sent the troops in (where as, if they had resorted to carpet bombing, they wouldn't not have, since there'll be nothing living in the fused sand and molten rock semi plane that would have been left). did i explain the point to your satisfaction? or will you continue to try and twist my words around?
-
fat_boy wrote:
Because I dont lie.
Because you have a link to a site on the internet? Using that as a defense of your truthfulness is tantamount to lying in itself.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Because you have a link to a site on the internet? Using that as a defense of your truthfulness is tantamount to lying in itself.
I stated the tv program stated that thios massacre happened. This was questioned. I found many google hits for the massacre. I dont know that it happened, I wasnt there, but that wast the point. The fact the program mentioned it was questioned. I cant answer that without the accuser watching the program, so in that absebce I found references to the same massacre on the internet. It doesnt prove the massacre happened, it doesnt prove the program mentioned it, bit it does prove I didnt make the massacre up.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
So it didnt happen. Is that what you are saying? Publicly?
where did i say that?! i said israel didn't carpet bombed south lebanon (which, judging by the regional political and social behavious, it should have) but used selective targeting and as a result of that had to deal with hezbullah militants when they sent the troops in (where as, if they had resorted to carpet bombing, they wouldn't not have, since there'll be nothing living in the fused sand and molten rock semi plane that would have been left). did i explain the point to your satisfaction? or will you continue to try and twist my words around?
randprin wrote:
where did i say that?!
I am not refering ot bombing Lebanon. (my latest thread is ample evidence of that) I was referring to the mosque massacre. Do you deny it happened? Are you prepared to make a public statement to that effect?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I have been shocked in recent years to see some reporting that is not pro Israel, and some of the things that are reported. I'm sure all reporting I see, has some bias. I am equally sure that Israel as a whole ( not targetting any individuals there, or making any blanket statements ) have been given a get out of jail free card, both because everyone rightly feels horror for what the Jews suffered under Nazi Germany, and because much of America misinterprets the Bible to suggest they need to support any country, financially and otherwise, if it calls itself Israel.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
plenty of reporting is not pro-israel. eg/ FOX - Love Israel Sky News - Fence-sitters but more on the pro-israel side BBC - Anti Israel However, you often imply that the jews are flat out wrong for defending their country and holding onto land that they took in a war that was declared upon them. Im not saying that the issraeli's are whiter than white. Frankly I think they're all as bad as one another over there, but the fact is that terror tactics are not acceptable to the US/UK/Europe/Aus and theyre damn well not accepted by Israel. If Mexico started doing to the US what the palestinians do to Israel the response would be just as brutal and just as swift.
-
Hihi, always resort to the same old "You're antisemite" trick. If it makes you feel better. I'm not gonna give anyone a pass just because they're suffered greatly in the past, and it wasn't Israel that suffered, it was the people, the families, the ones that you so easilly now call "6 million", a statistic you wave around as a "STOP, you can't say anything bad about Israel or you're evil" when it is so much more, a lesson that so many seem to have forgotten or learned so little from when it comes to actions. But I'm sure you did your play on May 1st. I'm not saying Israel could have settled this peacefully. At this point there probably aren't many other choices, but they're not doing a whole lot at improving their image with the Palestinians that wouldn't mind living a peaceful life, if they do care. Maybe, just maybe if they had handled the start better but I'm sure nobody back then thought that the peasants they were throwing out of THEIR land would fight back. But that's long gone and can't restart it. It s all about the future and that isn't looking too bright. As for Ceausescu, yeah, heard the SIE had links to some terrorist organisations, but they had all kinds of dubious dealings, including with some assasins. What does that have to do with me? Am I as a person to blame for what my country did, in another time? Or can't you differentiate between country and person, past and present?
Dexterus wrote:
What does that have to do with me? Am I as a person to blame for what my country did, in another time? Or can't you differentiate between country and person, past and present?
Yeah, that was my point.
-
Oakman wrote:
If we play that game, the U.S. will seek payback from the UK for 1812, and Britain and France will be at each other's throat for multiple reasons.
No, the difference is that those displaced in this case are still with us and can be directly compensated for their loss, or at least provided for.
Oakman wrote:
Interesting that you could ascribe it to better motives.
Perhaps I am just cynical. However, if they don't treat people as badly as they did, the motive doesn't really matter much, does it ?
Oakman wrote:
As the UK did the Irish and the U.S. did the Amerinds, and Australia did the indigines...and...and...and...?
See above. IF anything, we all pay daily for our racial guilt for those things, in terms of all sorts of policies that seek to favour aborigines here, for sure, to try to redress the balance, but the difference is, the people who were displaced are long dead and so are their children. Just because wrong was done in the past, doesn't mean it can be today. Why do you think the US didn't just fly into Iraq, bomb it, and make it the 51st state of the US ?
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Christian Graus wrote:
the difference is that those displaced in this case are still with us
I'm pretty sure that most of the Amerinds displaced during the 1800's are no longer around. In most cases, neither are their tribes. I'm sure that 150 years from now the Israelis and the Palestinians of that day will compensate the descendents of anyone they shoot today. It's part of the cycle. Holding them to a higher standard than we do ourselves seems a little unfair.
Christian Graus wrote:
However, if they don't treat people as badly as they did, the motive doesn't really matter much, does it ?
My point was not the motive, but in why you might be ascribing a less than flattering motive.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why do you think the US didn't just fly into Iraq, bomb it, and make it the 51st state of the US ?
We're smart?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
No, indeed, I was making a general comment about human nature and not accusing them specifically as being different to anyone else.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
Christian Graus wrote:
No, indeed, I was making a general comment about human nature and not accusing them specifically as being different to anyone else.
Youj might want to make that clearer, it's not coming across.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Because you have a link to a site on the internet? Using that as a defense of your truthfulness is tantamount to lying in itself.
I stated the tv program stated that thios massacre happened. This was questioned. I found many google hits for the massacre. I dont know that it happened, I wasnt there, but that wast the point. The fact the program mentioned it was questioned. I cant answer that without the accuser watching the program, so in that absebce I found references to the same massacre on the internet. It doesnt prove the massacre happened, it doesnt prove the program mentioned it, bit it does prove I didnt make the massacre up.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
The US
strike one
fat_boy wrote:
UK?
strike two
fat_boy wrote:
NATO?
strike three (p.s. NATO is not a country.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
fat_boy wrote:
It doesnt prove the massacre happened, it doesnt prove the program mentioned it, bit it does prove I didnt make the massacre up.
fair enough.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface