Israeli Solider Gets Nice Vacation.... [Archive]

theraven

26th June 2006, 15:28

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 26 2006, 12:26 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 26 2006, 12:26 PM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 12:08 PM
So the peaceful and ever righteous Arabs dug a tunnel into Israel proper and attacked a checkpoint, killing to soliders and wounding a 3rd, only to drag him down into the tunnel with them.

Wait, militants attacked SOLDIERS? that's just unreasonable, innocent civilians? fine but leave the soldiers out of it! [/b]
actually I was suprised to, usually the terroirsts stick to targets that can't defend themselves, but I guess if they've got suprise, numbers twice and some of the israelis they can muster up the courage....

These were armed, uniformed soldiers in a war zone, theres no more clear cut case of a legitimate military target than that. Killing and capturing them is not 'terrorism', its lawful military resistance under all forms of international law.

true, and if they were in a state of war things would be different, however given that (supposedly) both sides want peace this is a very funny action...

The Israelis on the other hand prefer to kill civilian familes and children.

if they did many more would be dead....

Intifada

26th June 2006, 15:30

Fantastic news!

For so long the Israelis have been able to label the attacks on their civilians as "terrorism", and quite correctly too.
This time, however, the Palestinians have done nothing wrong.

These soldiers are helping maintain an illegal occupation and are therefore legitimate targets.

Indeed, it is embarassingly ironic that Israel should complain about this incident, seeing as thousands of Palestinians (including many who are innocent) have been incarcerated in Israeli-controlled prisons (for many years) at this moment in time.

In fact, it was not long ago that the Israeli forces raided a Palestinian prison in the illegally occupied West Bank and "arrested" a Palestinian leader.

Then theres the terrorist wing of Fatah claiming chemical capibitlies...

So what if they do?

Israel has nuclear capabilities.

Man those Israelis must be real evil to make the poor Arabs do this....

This "kidnapping", or should I say "arrest" was done in retaliation for the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians by Israel.

I applaud the Palestinian militants who carried out this brilliant mission for realising that the targeting of Israeli civilians is not acceptable, whilst targeting Israeli troops is perfectly legitimate.

theraven

26th June 2006, 17:50

Fantastic news!

For so long the Israelis have been able to label the attacks on their civilians as "terrorism", and quite correctly too.
This time, however, the Palestinians have done nothing wrong.

except kidnap some private in the israeli army....

These soldiers are helping maintain an illegal occupation and are therefore legitimate targets.

they were in pre-67 israel, but nice try....

Indeed, it is embarassingly ironic that Israel should complain about this incident, seeing as thousands of Palestinians (including many who are innocent) have been incarcerated in Israeli-controlled prisons (for many years) at this moment in time.

In fact, it was not long ago that the Israeli forces raided a Palestinian prison in the illegally occupied West Bank and "arrested" a Palestinian leader.

Israel incarcate terrorists who plot offenseives against israeli citizens, not the privates who carry them out.

So what if they do?

Israel has nuclear capabilities.

so? israel is also a stable democracy, and a small state surrounded by much larger ones who want to destory it. it would seem israel kinda needs those nukes. esp. with iran...

This "kidnapping", or should I say "arrest" was done in retaliation for the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians by Israel.

who were killed during retalaitons by israel for palestian rocket attacks

I applaud the Palestinian militants who carried out this brilliant mission for realising that the targeting of Israeli civilians is not acceptable, whilst targeting Israeli troops is perfectly legitimate.

targetting israeli troops is legitamte, however if they think this won't bring about retatlaiotn.....well they are mistaken.

*[email protected]*

26th June 2006, 17:58

Though its a tad cowdice for my taste, Its good to hear their killing soldiers rather then people eating their dinner in restruants. :unsure:

26th June 2006, 19:05

except kidnap some private in the israeli army....

actually it was a non-commissioned officer not a private, though i'm not really sure what difference it makes.

they were in pre-67 israel, but nice try....

The fact that Israel is an active belligerent with Palestine means that its armed forces are participating in a war against them whether in the occupied territories or the annexed territories, so its irrelevent.

Israel incarcate terrorists who plot offenseives against israeli citizens, not the privates who carry them out

Israel murders both random Palestinian civilians, civilians employees and officials of the Palestinian government, and Palestinian soldiers of all ranks and affiliations.

Do you honestly think that the Israelis would not capture or kill armed, uniformed, palestinian gunmen, in revenge attacks, on account of they're being low ranked? lol.

so? israel is also a stable democracy,

Oh yah, a "democracy" where most of the people it administrates over have no rights to vote or any other rights for that matter, where until relatively recently there were two sets of legal systems, civil law for jews and military law for arabs. A stable democracy that openly engages in collective punishment, torture, illigal occupation, illigal settlement, and apartheid.

and a small state surrounded by much larger ones who want to destory it.

None of israel's neighbores are either openly threatening or remotely military threats.

it would seem israel kinda needs those nukes. esp. with iran...

More like Iran really needs nuclear weapons to protect itself against the Israeli nuclear threat. Israel is the only state in the middle east possessing weapons of mass destruction.

who were killed during retalaitons by israel for palestian rocket attacks

So, basically what you're saying is, the Palestinians retaliate against soldiers, the Israelis retaliate against children.

Forward Union

26th June 2006, 19:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 12:29 PM
actually I was suprised to, usually the terroirsts stick to targets that can't defend themselves, but I guess if they've got suprise, numbers twice and some of the israelis they can muster up the courage....

I don't support the Palestinian militants either, not all of them. But the movement is far to broad and decentralised to be able to label them "the terrorists" some groups use terror tactics, others don't.

true, and if they were in a state of war things would be different, however given that (supposedly) both sides want peace this is a very funny action...

Again, you assume the Palestinians are some sort of homogeneous collective entity that all share the same goal. This is a common mistake people make toward other groups along national and racial lines. It's a a load of bullshit.

Some Palestinians want peace, some want war.

Phalanx

26th June 2006, 20:10

Do the Palestinian militants honestly think they'll win their indepedence from Israel if they kill their soldiers? It seems to me that it only brings massive Israeli retaliation and more casualties. But it's their struggle, I guess...

Intifada

26th June 2006, 20:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:51 PM
except kidnap some private in the israeli army...
I hope you call the mass arrests and arbitrary detention of Palestinian men, women and children the same thing, but I don't think Zionists have such a sense of consistency.

they were in pre-67 israel, but nice try....

He was on the Gaza border crossing.

Israel incarcate terrorists who plot offenseives against israeli citizens, not the privates who carry them out

Utter crap.

Israel and mass detention in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions (http://www.amnesty.org.il/reports/MDE.html)

Administrative detention should be banned (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4293.shtml)

so? israel is also a stable democracy, and a small state surrounded by much larger ones who want to destory it. it would seem israel kinda needs those nukes. esp. with iran...

Israel is not a "democracy", and Tragic gave a few reasons as to why it is not democratic.

Moreover, there is no real threat from Iran, as the Iranians have not got nuclear weapons.

No other surrounding state can realistically threaten Israel, it is the other way around.

who were killed during retalaitons by israel for palestian rocket attacks

Which were fired in retaliation for the illegal occupation of Palestinian land and all the injustices that come with it.

targetting israeli troops is legitamte, however if they think this won't bring about retatlaiotn.....well they are mistaken.

Of course it will.

But until Israel leaves the OPTs, Palestinians will resist.

Intifada

26th June 2006, 20:45

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 26 2006, 05:11 PM
Do the Palestinian militants honestly think they'll win their indepedence from Israel if they kill their soldiers? It seems to me that it only brings massive Israeli retaliation and more casualties. But it's their struggle, I guess...
All people have the right to resist occupation.

Hiero

26th June 2006, 22:26

Seriously, we don't care.

theraven

26th June 2006, 22:28

I hope you call the mass arrests and arbitrary detention of Palestinian men, women and children the same thing, but I don't think Zionists have such a sense of consistency.

haha and you terrorist supporters clearly don't, since afterall you DO support the terroist kidnaping of the oslider but not the detainment of people by israel..how intereasting...

He was on the Gaza border crossing.

on his side...

Utter crap.

Israel and mass detention in cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions

Administrative detention should be banned

somehow i doubt that the arabs are putting this solider up in comfort...so again double standard...

Israel is not a "democracy", and Tragic gave a few reasons as to why it is not democratic.

Moreover, there is no real threat from Iran, as the Iranians have not got nuclear weapons.

No other surrounding state can realistically threaten Israel, it is the other way around.

1) I'll adress your first point in my response to tragic

2) iran does not YET have nuclear weapons

3) they do not threaten israel any longer, in part because israel has nukes.

Which were fired in retaliation for the illegal occupation of Palestinian land and all the injustices that come with it.

well thats the crux of the dispute isn't it,so they are figthing over the territory, not over the various violinces done, and therefore both sides are perfectly justifed in figthing.

Of course it will.

But until Israel leaves the OPTs, Palestinians will resist.

which makes it more likely israel won't leave..how ironic

Again, you assume the Palestinians are some sort of homogeneous collective entity that all share the same goal. This is a common mistake people make toward other groups along national and racial lines. It's a a load of bullshit.

Some Palestinians want peace, some want war.

this is of course true, however the elements that are in power are mostly those that want war-whatever infatida claims otherwise.

Hiero

26th June 2006, 22:34

on his side...

Israelies do not have their own side. There is no Israel nation.

theraven

26th June 2006, 22:43

Originally posted by *[email protected]*@Jun 26 2006, 02:59 PM
Though its a tad cowdice for my taste, Its good to hear their killing soldiers rather then people eating their dinner in restruants. :unsure:
my reaction to-I thought "maybe those folks aren't cowards after all..."

actually it was a non-commissioned officer not a private, though i'm not really sure what difference it makes.

comparing people who make deciosn/planning vs low level types. if they wer egrabbing a bunch of low levels that would make sense, as would grabbing a few higher ups, but grabbing one low level is purely to use it
a) as a barging tool
b) as propaganda

QUOTE
they were in pre-67 israel, but nice try....

The fact that Israel is an active belligerent with Palestine means that its armed forces are participating in a war against them whether in the occupied territories or the annexed territories, so its irrelevent.

1) both sides are actively belligerent...
2) what is the difference between "occupied" and "annexed" teritores?
QUOTE
Israel incarcate terrorists who plot offenseives against israeli citizens, not the privates who carry them out

Israel murders both random Palestinian civilians, civilians employees and officials of the Palestinian government, and Palestinian soldiers of all ranks and affiliations.

Israels solidres almost univesrally fire to kill other soliders, it does not go around rampaging killing civialins for no reason, civilian die because
1) not all the fighters are in uniform, thus it is claimed they are cvilians(no I know of no evidnec of this, but its not hard to imagine)
2) most civialins die in the cross fire

Do you honestly think that the Israelis would not capture or kill armed, uniformed, palestinian gunmen, in revenge attacks, on account of they're being low ranked? lol.

no, i do not see israel killing some low level soliders as a revenge attack, they may do so in the course of a revenge attack, but it would not be their main objective. you are forgetting the vast, vast VAST differneces in capabltis here. frankly israel is using its pinky at the moment, god help the arabs if israel gets really pissed off.

Oh yah, a "democracy" where most of the people it administrates over have no rights to vote or any other rights for that matter, where until relatively recently there were two sets of legal systems, civil law for jews and military law for arabs. A stable democracy that openly engages in collective punishment, torture, illigal occupation, illigal settlement, and apartheid.

actually there are two legal systems, but it is not racial but citizenship based. arab israelis (and there are plenty) are full citizens. they have voting rights (Even MPs) and all the other associated rights with citizenship, except they are exempt from the draft (for the obvious reaosn that it would be an extraoridanry burden to expect them to fight against fellow arabs)

None of israel's neighbores are either openly threatening or remotely military threats.

again this is because of the nukes...

More like Iran really needs nuclear weapons to protect itself against the Israeli nuclear threat. Israel is the only state in the middle east possessing weapons of mass destruction.

Israel is not the slightest bit thereatning with its nukes, indeed it doesn't even admit to having them. IF israel ever used them it would be for defenesive purposes..

So, basically what you're saying is, the Palestinians retaliate against soldiers, the Israelis retaliate against children.

no, the iserali artiellyr was aimed at the source of teh rockets, however sometimes they miss. Israels attacks are almost always aimed at paramilitary operations, and arab attacks are almost universally aimed at civillians.

theraven

26th June 2006, 22:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:35 PM

on his side...

Israelies do not have their own side. There is no Israel nation.
oh really?

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/MEast-pol.gif

:wacko: for some reason maps seem to dissagree with you....that and the UN..america..britain..egypt...jordan...and a host of other countires as well. you can say israel has no RIGHT to exist (though again you'd be wrong) but to deny its existnace is foolish....(then again you are a commie...).

Janus

27th June 2006, 02:29

again this is because of the nukes...
More like because of the lost wars that they have already fought against Israel and the fact that they know they can't win without a major power on their side.

Jazzratt

27th June 2006, 02:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:44 PM

None of israel's neighbores are either openly threatening or remotely military threats.

again this is because of the nukes...

And the backing it's recieved from america, let's not forget israels big bully brother who can (and will) step in if it looks like israel is in any real trouble.

theraven

27th June 2006, 03:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:30 PM

again this is because of the nukes...
More like because of the lost wars that they have already fought against Israel and the fact that they know they can't win without a major power on their side.
which in the 70s they had-ussr....however because of israle nukes israel was able to garner more support.

And the backing it's recieved from america, let's not forget israels big bully brother who can (and will) step in if it looks like israel is in any real trouble.

haha, americans never sent troops to help israel. it has sent them aid, however they were suriving before america as well.

Janus

27th June 2006, 03:28

which in the 70s they had-ussr
The USSR has not consistently supported the Arab nations as the West has done with Israel.

however because of israle nukes israel was able to garner more support.
I would think that they would gain less support 'cause of that.

Phalanx

27th June 2006, 04:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:29 AM

which in the 70s they had-ussr
The USSR has not consistently supported the Arab nations as the West has done with Israel.

No, that's not true at all. After the Six Day War, the West started to really get involved with Israel, but before that? Israel had to depend on WWII tanks and planes bought from the French (whereas the Soviets send billions worth of armaments to the Arab nations with very little cost). Israel had two pieces of artillery during the War of Independence, and from the Napoleonic Wars, no doubt!

During the Yom Kippur War, when Israel was on the verge of defeat, all the US did was complain to the UN. When the Egyptian Third Army was on the brink of being totally annihilated, the Soviet Union threatened to send its own troops to fight Israel. Not to mention that Israel had to fight Soviet pilots numerous times over the Sinai.

No, the USSR supported Syria and Egypt more than the US has supported Israel.

theraven

27th June 2006, 04:53

Originally posted by Chinghis Khan+Jun 27 2006, 01:51 AM--> (Chinghis Khan @ Jun 27 2006, 01:51 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 12:29 AM

which in the 70s they had-ussr
The USSR has not consistently supported the Arab nations as the West has done with Israel.

No, that's not true at all. After the Six Day War, the West started to really get involved with Israel, but before that? Israel had to depend on WWII tanks and planes bought from the French (whereas the Soviets send billions worth of armaments to the Arab nations with very little cost). Israel had two pieces of artillery during the War of Independence, and from the Napoleonic Wars, no doubt!

During the Yom Kippur War, when Israel was on the verge of defeat, all the US did was complain to the UN. When the Egyptian Third Army was on the brink of being totally annihilated, the Soviet Union threatened to send its own troops to fight Israel. Not to mention that Israel had to fight Soviet pilots numerous times over the Sinai.

No, the USSR supported Syria and Egypt more than the US has supported Israel. [/b]
holy crap I totally agree with a post by a member of the commie club!!!!!!!!

\
I would think that they would gain less support 'cause of that.

you mean the abitlyt to destroy the earth doesn't give people more of a reason to send you weapons?

Hiero

27th June 2006, 08:00

Originally posted by theraven+Jun 27 2006, 06:47 AM--> (theraven @ Jun 27 2006, 06:47 AM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 07:35 PM

on his side...

Israelies do not have their own side. There is no Israel nation.
oh really?

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/MEast-pol.gif

:wacko: for some reason maps seem to dissagree with you....that and the UN..america..britain..egypt...jordan...and a host of other countires as well. you can say israel has no RIGHT to exist (though again you'd be wrong) but to deny its existnace is foolish....(then again you are a commie...). [/b]
That map proves the existance of a Israeli state. Nations are different. Nations are a collection of people will a common economy, ethnicty (language and culture), national goals and identity, and most importantly common terrority. Israel is created on a collection of Jewish people from Europe, North Africa and the USA. These people were already part of other nations, they were not part of a Jewish nation.

theraven

27th June 2006, 13:14

Originally posted by Hiero+Jun 27 2006, 05:01 AM--> (Hiero @ Jun 27 2006, 05:01 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:47 AM

[email protected] 26 2006, 07:35 PM

on his side...

Israelies do not have their own side. There is no Israel nation.
oh really?

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/MEast-pol.gif

:wacko: for some reason maps seem to dissagree with you....that and the UN..america..britain..egypt...jordan...and a host of other countires as well. you can say israel has no RIGHT to exist (though again you'd be wrong) but to deny its existnace is foolish....(then again you are a commie...).
That map proves the existance of a Israeli state. Nations are different. Nations are a collection of people will a common economy, ethnicty (language and culture), national goals and identity, and most importantly common terrority. Israel is created on a collection of Jewish people from Europe, North Africa and the USA. These people were already part of other nations, they were not part of a Jewish nation. [/b]
haha well again yu'd be wrong, jews are most defiently a nation and ethicity. there are common physical and cutulra triats, common langauge, commo religion, common homeland etc.

funny you should mention it though-those arabs you want to give the land to don't have that uniqe nationhood bit...

oh and btw you were clearly talking about the geographic points as you were adressing my comment abotu him being on the israeli side of th eborder, thus the map was a valid response

Intifada

27th June 2006, 13:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:29 PM
haha and you terrorist supporters clearly don't
Where have I or anybody else declared support or terrorism?

you DO support the terroist kidnaping of the oslider but not the detainment of people by israel..how intereasting...

The capture of an Israeli soldier is "terrorism"?

I don't think so.

Soldiers are legitimate targets in any war, unlike civilians whose only crime was to be Palestinian, as the AI report I linked (and which you totally ignored) showed.

somehow i doubt that the arabs are putting this solider up in comfort...so again double standard...

Untl you have proof of that you nor I cannot assume that the soldier is being treated in a brutal manner.

I know that many Palestinians, especially those who have family members, have called for good treatment of the soldier, which I hope will be granted. In fact, there have been reports that Shalit has received medical treatment from his captors.

1) I'll adress your first point in my response to tragic

Israeli "democracy" is simply an incarnation of the "democracy" of apartheid South Africa.

Israel is democratic for Jews, just as South Africa was democratic for whites during apartheid.

2) iran does not YET have nuclear weapons

You assume that they want nuclear weapons.

Where is your proof that the Iranians want such capabilities?

Even still, an Iran with nuclear weapons would not be able to realistically threaten Israel.

3) they do not threaten israel any longer, in part because israel has nukes.

Israel has threatened Palestinians and treated them in an aggressive and brutal manner for decades.

By your very own logic, there would be nothing wrong with Palestinian militants acquiring similar weapons for self-defence.

well thats the crux of the dispute isn't it,so they are figthing over the territory, not over the various violinces done, and therefore both sides are perfectly justifed in figthing.

An illegal occupation of another people's homeland is not "justifiable".

Until the illegal occupation ends, Palestinians have a right to resist.

which makes it more likely israel won't leave..how ironic

Right.

But Palestinians will continue to fight.

As Arafat once said, the Palestinians will not become the Native Americans.

Marx_was_right!

27th June 2006, 14:32

Soldiers are legitimate targets in any war, unlike civilians whose only crime was to be Palestinian, as the AI report I linked (and which you totally ignored) showed.

he No offence intifada but ur not fightinf a war. Only thing palestinaisn can fire at is mid-air. They always chant for revenge and the nothing happens, just shoot into mid-air like retards. Then fire crap WW2 rockets and maybe one person injured if lucky, but usually miss. Since intifada began Palestine has 10x higher casualties than Israel. ur not fighting a war. it was a kidnapping. If you fighting a war, war be over in 2 seconds.

theraven

27th June 2006, 15:08

Originally posted by Marx_was_right!@Jun 27 2006, 11:33 AM

Soldiers are legitimate targets in any war, unlike civilians whose only crime was to be Palestinian, as the AI report I linked (and which you totally ignored) showed.

he No offence intifada but ur not fightinf a war. Only thing palestinaisn can fire at is mid-air. They always chant for revenge and the nothing happens, just shoot into mid-air like retards. Then fire crap WW2 rockets and maybe one person injured if lucky, but usually miss. Since intifada began Palestine has 10x higher casualties than Israel. ur not fighting a war. it was a kidnapping. If you fighting a war, war be over in 2 seconds.
and to turn insult into injury israels fighting with its right arm and two legs tied up too...

Where have I or anybody else declared support or terrorism?

you haven't out and out said it, but somehow I don't see you having a problem with "self defense" homicide bombing

The capture of an Israeli soldier is "terrorism"?

I don't think so.

Soldiers are legitimate targets in any war, unlike civilians whose only crime was to be Palestinian, as the AI report I linked (and which you totally ignored) showed.

the capture of the israeli solider is done out of terrorims yes. soliders ARE legitamte targets, and just the attack in the border patrol, while an escalation and act of agression, was legitatmet. but taking one of the osliders as a hostage was clearly done from terrorist motives.

Untl you have proof of that you nor I cannot assume that the soldier is being treated in a brutal manner.

I know that many Palestinians, especially those who have family members, have called for good treatment of the soldier, which I hope will be granted. In fact, there have been reports that Shalit has received medical treatment from his captors.

we don't even know whos holding him, no less in what conditos. as for medical care. i hope so, they injured him.

Israeli "democracy" is simply an incarnation of the "democracy" of apartheid South Africa.

Israel is democratic for Jews, just as South Africa was democratic for whites during apartheid.

oh really? so south africa had mixed white and black neighborhoods? south africa had black MPs? blacks had voting rights ?wow that wasn't the impression i got at all..

You assume that they want nuclear weapons.

Where is your proof that the Iranians want such capabilities?

Even still, an Iran with nuclear weapons would not be able to realistically threaten Israel.

1) its an educated guess, and hoenstly why do you think all of the west is so worried? no one is going to freak out about someone having nuclear pwoer, its the nukes we don't want them having

2) why not? their misles can reach israel...thus they can threaten...

Israel has threatened Palestinians and treated them in an aggressive and brutal manner for decades.

By your very own logic, there would be nothing wrong with Palestinian militants acquiring similar weapons for self-defence.

no because in all likelihood the arabs would use it. Israels policy is that it wil never use nukes unless facing imminetn destruction, ie armies are about to take tel aviv kinda thing.

Right.

But Palestinians will continue to fight.

As Arafat once said, the Palestinians will not become the Native Americans.

hmm....at least not the ones that gave up peacefully. how about the apache?

Marx_was_right!

27th June 2006, 15:53

and to turn insult into injury israels fighting with its right arm and two legs tied up too...

Amen to that. Palastine lost their land fare and square to Isralei in open warfare in 1948, 1967, 1973. If have any honor they will declare war properly and lose waht little still have or stpo petty attcks. I mean if Palastinen attacks, its OK, but if Israeli attacks, its like: "OH NO, the MONSTER!". I mean help us all. :wacko:

Loknar

28th June 2006, 04:48

From what I get from this is the political wing of Hamas has no control over its military wing. This is bad news for all parties.

So...the Hamas troops have a legitimate reason or conducted a legal attack....that’s fine. However, don’t get all pissed off when a few hundred Israeli tanks backed up by helicopters and jets starts to attack.

And son of a botch, you ignorant people who know as much about history as a 2 year old, just shut up. What is a Jew? A Jew is a branch of people of the Semitic peoples. Other Semitic peoples includes Arabs.

The Jews conquered the land from the Canaanites. Then they remained there ever since with a few exceptions such as the Babylonian exile and the Diaspora. However, even in the Diaspora Jews did remain behind. This is evident in the massacre of Christians by the Jewish community just before the time the Arabs took over (OH YES...THE ARABS INVADED PALESTINE).

Meanwhile, you had Jews who journeyed all over the known world and finally after Europe’s illness known as "Anti Semitism" reached is peek, the Jews returned to the home they conquered more than 2000 years ago.

imperialist

28th June 2006, 12:56

So Isreal is entering Gaza. About freaking time. Lets hope they stay there. The sooner the Kingdom of Solomon is reunited the better for all of us. That soldier could be dead by now anyway. There are even crazy lefist journalists asking if this will 'set back' the "peace-process". WTF :o ?!?! There is a 'peace process'? Well, hallalujah, lets crack out the champaigne and pass around the cigars. hmmm. All thinking men know the only way to make peace is through war. At least the Isrealis are prepared for one. Overwise they would be over-run by now. The only way to ensure peace is to prepare for war. So let rip the dogs of war. If we're going to have WW3 against terror, we may as well have a proper goddam war anyway, including invasions of North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela as well and be done with it. We shouldn't be afraid to re-shape the borders the way our ancestors did. This sitting on our hands business will only ensure the dictators and ego-maniac extremists remain in power.

Hiero

28th June 2006, 19:57

Meanwhile, you had Jews who journeyed all over the known world and finally after Europe’s illness known as "Anti Semitism" reached is peek, the Jews returned to the home they conquered more than 2000 years ago.

2000 years, that's the whole point. I would hate to see a world where everyone started to "return home" according to ancient history and biblical stories. We would have saxons "returning" to Europe, or groups of Sicilian returning to Troy.

The was no modern Jewish nation in the so called Isreal region, it is anceint history. The people of Jewish ancestory and religion living outside Israel by the 1900's were part of other nations.

This is no different to African Americans returing "home", like the Liberia experiment. Both "nations" developed into oppressor nations and destroyed or removed any nations occupying the land.

When we talk about nations, we are talking about modern history. In modern history i guess it is right to say their is a Jewish nation in Israel today, but it is a oppressor nation which has no right to statehood.

theraven

28th June 2006, 20:05

2000 years, that's the whole point. I would hate to see a world where everyone started to "return home" according to ancient history and biblical stories. We would have saxons "returning" to Europe, or groups of Sicilian returning to Troy.

well most of the world has no desire to "return home" they have a home, the jews however had no home for 2000 years.

The was no modern Jewish nation in the so called Isreal region, it is anceint history. The people of Jewish ancestory and religion living outside Israel by the 1900's were part of other nations.

actually there is, its been there for over 50 years now, again refer to the map. Jews did live in other countires, but rarely were we full citizens, or even citizens.

This is no different to African Americans returing "home", like the Liberia experiment. Both "nations" developed into oppressor nations and destroyed or removed any nations occupying the land.

except most african americans were not one tribe or nation, but various peoples taken from a wide variety of tribes. thus unlike the jews they aren't returning to tiher native land as a people.

When we talk about nations, we are talking about modern history. In modern history i guess it is right to say their is a Jewish nation in Israel today, but it is a oppressor nation which has no right to statehood.

glad you admit it, and it is very unopporseive given its abilities adn circumstances.

Loknar

28th June 2006, 23:40

2000 years, that's the whole point. I would hate to see a world where everyone started to "return home" according to ancient history and biblical stories. We would have saxons "returning" to Europe, or groups of Sicilian returning to Troy.

So its ok that we as Americans wont be giving land back to the Indians right?

That’s just it...there were Jews in Palestine before the Balfour declaration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_popula...ulation_in_1900 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population#Population_in_1900)

A small amount is listed here as well as in many other places. The Arabs are the invaders of most recent time. So using your reasoning, the Arabs in Palestine have no right to statehood, after all they did invade the area.

When we talk about nations, we are talking about modern history. In modern history i guess it is right to say their is a Jewish nation in Israel today, but it is a oppressor nation which has no right to statehood.

The Arabs have so much land and the vast majority of the land they inhabit today was conquered by them. The Jewish state as it is today shouldn’t be as large at it is. Originally it was isolated to the coastline and the Negev Desert. "well 40% of the population got 60% of the land". Asshole, more than half was desert land. If Israel didn’t get the Negev they would have inhabited about 20% of the land. The Arabs have enough desert ...what do they want? It wasn’t like they were developing the land.

Forward Union

29th June 2006, 00:29

theraven

29th June 2006, 01:45

Originally posted by Additives Free+Jun 28 2006, 09:30 PM--> (Additives Free @ Jun 28 2006, 09:30 PM)
Marx_was_right!@Jun 27 2006, 11:33 AM

Soldiers are legitimate targets in any war, unlike civilians whose only crime was to be Palestinian, as the AI report I linked (and which you totally ignored) showed.

he No offence intifada but ur not fightinf a war. Only thing palestinaisn can fire at is mid-air. They always chant for revenge and the nothing happens, just shoot into mid-air like retards. Then fire crap WW2 rockets and maybe one person injured if lucky, but usually miss. Since intifada began Palestine has 10x higher casualties than Israel. ur not fighting a war. it was a kidnapping. If you fighting a war, war be over in 2 seconds.
Are you still living in the 1940s? not all war are outright tank battles and infantry charges anymore. [/b]
yea but the abilty to shoot at your enemy is helpful

imperialist

29th June 2006, 03:17

Originally posted by theraven+Jun 28 2006, 10:46 PM--> (theraven @ Jun 28 2006, 10:46 PM)
Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 28 2006, 09:30 PM

Marx_was_right!@Jun 27 2006, 11:33 AM

Soldiers are legitimate targets in any war, unlike civilians whose only crime was to be Palestinian, as the AI report I linked (and which you totally ignored) showed.

he No offence intifada but ur not fightinf a war. Only thing palestinaisn can fire at is mid-air. They always chant for revenge and the nothing happens, just shoot into mid-air like retards. Then fire crap WW2 rockets and maybe one person injured if lucky, but usually miss. Since intifada began Palestine has 10x higher casualties than Israel. ur not fighting a war. it was a kidnapping. If you fighting a war, war be over in 2 seconds.
Are you still living in the 1940s? not all war are outright tank battles and infantry charges anymore.
yea but the abilty to shoot at your enemy is helpful [/b]
lol :D Wouldn't that be what a gun was for? But those Pesky air molecules! They need to be taught a lesson first dammit! :lol:

PRC-UTE

29th June 2006, 05:56

Great attack :)

imperialist

29th June 2006, 10:22

Now that Hamas leadership is under arrest, what is to be done with the Palestinians? I suggest the Gaza strip be made a seperate state to the West Bank. It'll stop them wanting to join up. Either that or we need a major war to sort out the winners from the loosers and Israel can claim the whole freaking middle east. That would get the oil money away from the terrorists as well.

EDIT: Plan for the Rest of the Middle East: Iraq should be handed over to someone who knows how to run it, like ChevronTexaco or Exxon. The US should put out a tender for mercenaries to sieze Iran and Iran should then be sold to the highest corporate bidder and the profits distributed to American and allied taxpayers. I am not sure if Afghanistan has much value at all except to drug lords so it will be hardest to sell. Just watch, neo-colonialism will secularise the whole middle east, just as it did India, Japan and the Phillipines.

Intifada

1st July 2006, 17:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:09 PM
you haven't out and out said it, but somehow I don't see you having a problem with "self defense" homicide bombing
Indeed I have not because I condemn suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

However, until the illegal occupation of Palestinian land ends, Palestinian terrorism and resistance will continue.

the capture of the israeli solider is done out of terrorims yes.

No.

The raid on the Israeli border-control post was not terrorism, but a legitimate attack on an occupying force, something that is entirely legal.

but taking one of the osliders as a hostage was clearly done from terrorist motives.

What a stupid statement.

Gilad Shalit is a Prisoner of War.

oh really? so south africa had mixed white and black neighborhoods? south africa had black MPs? blacks had voting rights ?wow that wasn't the impression i got at all..

You cannot have "democracy" in a state which has always protected the notion of a "Jewish state".

Jewish democracy can tolerate Arab citizens as guests so long as they respect the rules of hospitality. In other words, Israel can tolerate the presence of those "Israeli-Arabs" who agree to remain on the margins of both Arab society and Israeli society.

What the hell is an "Israeli-Arab"?

Indeed, non-Jews are restricted in terms of how much land they can own, and in which places they can own land at all, thanks to laws granting preferential treatment to Jewish residents.

What kind of "democratic" state has such racist laws?

1) its an educated guess, and hoenstly why do you think all of the west is so worried? no one is going to freak out about someone having nuclear pwoer, its the nukes we don't want them having

Where is your evidence to support this "educated guess"?

The West is worried by a country (that does not bow down to their rules) trying to gain the right to peaceful nuclear development.

2) why not? their misles can reach israel...thus they can threaten...

If Iran, or any other country for that matter, was to attack Israel, they would themselves be destroyed.

Self-preservation is not something that the Iranian ruling-class wants to risk.

no because in all likelihood the arabs would use it. Israels policy is that it wil never use nukes unless facing imminetn destruction, ie armies are about to take tel aviv kinda thing.

Palestinians are facing imminent destruction (ie the Israeli army invading Gaza kinda thing), so by your logic they would be justified in attacking Israel with nuclear weapons.

RedAnarchist

1st July 2006, 17:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 08:23 AM
EDIT: Plan for the Rest of the Middle East: Iraq should be handed over to someone who knows how to run it, like ChevronTexaco or Exxon. The US should put out a tender for mercenaries to sieze Iran and Iran should then be sold to the highest corporate bidder and the profits distributed to American and allied taxpayers. I am not sure if Afghanistan has much value at all except to drug lords so it will be hardest to sell. Just watch, neo-colonialism will secularise the whole middle east, just as it did India, Japan and the Phillipines.
I know you're a capitalist, but this sounds so stupid that even Bush himself wouldn't waste his time with it.

Anyway, I thought the US and it's servile minions were in Iraq to "liberate the people". I didn't realise that this meant turning their country into one big pot of gold for American oil companies.

Mercenaries to attack Iran and hand it over to America? Do you have any idea of the size of Iran?

Neo-colonialism securalised India and the Philipines? Oh, I'm sorry - I forgot about Kashmir and the Islamic fundamentalists in the Phillipines.

Intifada

1st July 2006, 17:21

Originally posted by Marx_was_right!@Jun 27 2006, 11:33 AM
he No offence intifada but ur not fightinf a war.
Indeed you are right.

It is an asymmetric conflict where Israel (a country armed to the teeth by the West) is "fighting" a battle against an unarmed people.

theraven

2nd July 2006, 08:08

Originally posted by Intifada+Jul 1 2006, 02:22 PM--> (Intifada @ Jul 1 2006, 02:22 PM)
Marx_was_right!@Jun 27 2006, 11:33 AM
he No offence intifada but ur not fightinf a war.
Indeed you are right.

It is an asymmetric conflict where Israel (a country armed to the teeth by the West) is "fighting" a battle against an unarmed people. [/b]
those unarmed people sure do manage to fight back an awful lot :-p

Indeed I have not because I condemn suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

However, until the illegal occupation of Palestinian land ends, Palestinian terrorism and resistance will continue.

so its bad, but i accept ti because those evil joos still live there....right

No.

The raid on the Israeli border-control post was not terrorism, but a legitimate attack on an occupying force, something that is entirely legal.

1) the raid, if done as claimed, was done by the Non-government org that did it to inflcit terror,thus making it a terroist act. they aslo did it to get a political goal acheived, namely release of prisoners

2) the raid, if done as is mostly klikely by the govenrment, constitues an act of war.

thus in either case israels policy is totally justiefeid.

You cannot have "democracy" in a state which has always protected the notion of a "Jewish state".

democray is about voting rights and legal rights, not religion.

Jewish democracy can tolerate Arab citizens as guests so long as they respect the rules of hospitality. In other words, Israel can tolerate the presence of those "Israeli-Arabs" who agree to remain on the margins of both Arab society and Israeli society.

israel gives Israeli-Arabs the rights of citizenship because they are citizens. they don't exist as some fringe servetn class.

What the hell is an "Israeli-Arab"?

An arab with Israeli Citizenship.....

Indeed, non-Jews are restricted in terms of how much land they can own, and in which places they can own land at all, thanks to laws granting preferential treatment to Jewish residents.

evidence? what laws do you refer to?

Where is your evidence to support this "educated guess"?

The West is worried by a country (that does not bow down to their rules) trying to gain the right to peaceful nuclear development.

again that doesnt' make snese. peaceful nuclear power is not harmful, its the nuclear weapons that are.

If Iran, or any other country for that matter, was to attack Israel, they would themselves be destroyed.

Self-preservation is not something that the Iranian ruling-class wants to risk.

but of course they can't give it to some arabs in the terrotires to detonate..

Palestinians are facing imminent destruction (ie the Israeli army invading Gaza kinda thing), so by your logic they would be justified in attacking Israel with nuclear weapons.

destruction must be destroying something. since nothing is being destroyed, then no.
plus your forgetting israel is a small coutnry, if the arabs nuked say tel aiiv chance are they'd be destroye dby their own nukes fallout.

Intifada

3rd July 2006, 13:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:09 AM
those unarmed people sure do manage to fight back an awful lot :-p
With whatever they can get their hands on, which is not much.

That the Palestinian people have managed to resist thus far is a credit to them.

so its bad, but i accept ti because those evil joos still live there....right

What the hell?

1) the raid, if done as claimed, was done by the Non-government org that did it to inflcit terror,thus making it a terroist act. they aslo did it to get a political goal acheived, namely release of prisoners

It was done by the military-wing of Hamas, which is an organisation that has been elected to a position of power in the Palestinian government.

Moreover, every act of war is going to "inflict terror".

Look at the Israeli air-raids on Gaza that have killed dozens since the start of June. Tell Houda Ghalia that she was not being terrorised by the murder of her family by Israel.

Of course, Israeli actions are not "terrorism" but defence, as the name "IDF" suggests, right....

:rolleyes:

Moreover, I believe that Israel has rejected calls to release female and under-18 Palestinian prisoners in a potential exchange for Shalit.

thus in either case israels policy is totally justiefeid.

No.

Israel has attacked the general Palestinian population, whilst the Palestinians attacked a legitimate military target.

democray is about voting rights and legal rights, not religion.

Democracy is about equal rights for all regardless of race and religion.

Israel discriminates against non-Jews.

Racist marriage law upheld by Israel (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article484122.ece)

evidence? what laws do you refer to?

93% of Israeli land is considered to be the "inalienable property of the Jewish people" (see the Development Authority Law).

Therefore, Arabs are prevented from living in any but limited areas.

Israeli-Arab homes are even demolished to make way for Israeli Jews.

Jerusalem orders Palestinian homes to be razed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1499116,00.html)

peaceful nuclear power is not harmful, its the nuclear weapons that are.

Exactly.

Iran seeks peaceful nuclear power (which is their right under the NPT) not nuclear weapons, as you claim.

but of course they can't give it to some arabs in the terrotires to detonate..

Because Arabs are untrustworthy...

<_<

Fuck off with your double standards and hypocrisy.

destruction must be destroying something. since nothing is being destroyed, then no.

Have you been watching the news lately?

plus your forgetting israel is a small coutnry, if the arabs nuked say tel aiiv chance are they'd be destroye dby their own nukes fallout.

Which is one reason why they (including Iran) would not nuke Israel

theraven

3rd July 2006, 19:13

With whatever they can get their hands on, which is not much.

That the Palestinian people have managed to resist thus far is a credit to them.

actually its more a credit to Israels restraint then anything. anyoen who thinks the arabs are actually fending off israel are delusinal.

It was done by the military-wing of Hamas, which is an organisation that has been elected to a position of power in the Palestinian government.

Moreover, every act of war is going to "inflict terror".

Look at the Israeli air-raids on Gaza that have killed dozens since the start of June. Tell Houda Ghalia that she was not being terrorised by the murder of her family by Israel.

Of course, Israeli actions are not "terrorism" but defence, as the name "IDF" suggests, right....

rolleyes.gif

Moreover, I believe that Israel has rejected calls to release female and under-18 Palestinian prisoners in a potential exchange for Shalit.

1) except israels action was done to destroy a target not terroize the civiilnas

2) yes israel is indeed resisiting exchanging many many prisoners (some of whom are guilty of actions against israel).

No.

Israel has attacked the general Palestinian population, whilst the Palestinians attacked a legitimate military target.

disco clubs are "legitmate military targets" ??

Democracy is about equal rights for all regardless of race and religion.

Israel discriminates against non-Jews.

Racist marriage law upheld by Israel

I'm pretty sure demcoracy is how you choose your leaders. however that law does not exempt jews, its just the hardest hit are arabs. that law however is well within their right as a nation to assert who can and cannot come into theri country.

93% of Israeli land is considered to be the "inalienable property of the Jewish people" (see the Development Authority Law).

Therefore, Arabs are prevented from living in any but limited areas.

Israeli-Arab homes are even demolished to make way for Israeli Jews.

Jerusalem orders Palestinian homes to be razed

I don't knwo waht devolpment authority law your talking about, but your link is talking about destroyign illegeally built houses (aka houses that shouldn't be there anyway) on historic land thats supposed to be a national park.

Exactly.

Iran seeks peaceful nuclear power (which is their right under the NPT) not nuclear weapons, as you claim.

they seek nuclear power whiel retaing th material that will allow them to construct a nuclear bomb

Because Arabs are untrustworthy...

dry.gif

Fuck off with your double standards and hypocrisy.

well the radicals are. I wouldn't be fond of a khanist israel controlling nukes either. fortunatly the khanists are outlawed.

Have you been watching the news lately?

sure why?

Which is one reason why they (including Iran) would not nuke Israel

some people have the view that "if I can't have it no one can"

theraven

3rd July 2006, 19:14

Oh and by the way why did you close your other post without giving me a chance to respond OR a reason?

theraven

3rd July 2006, 19:33

since the other thread was closed w/o reason I feel the need to respond here

Now you are simply lying or showing your ignorance of the conflict.

I believe it is more likely to be the latter.

Hamas were not in power at the time of the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip.

whats your point? Israel maintaied air/border control because the arabs had no governmetn capabale fo doing so.

The IDF does not "defend" anything.

except israe

Yup.

The deaths of innocent people is mere "propaganda"...

sad.gif

it can be made to be, and thats the really sad thing

What!

laugh.gif

At least 24 Palestinians were killed by Israel in Gaza alone last month, before the invasion began after Shalit was taken prisoner.

um my point was israel does not run the interntal government of gaza...

I never argued that they did.

I argued, correctly, that the settlements Israel has built in the West Bank are there illegally, because they exist in the Occupied Palestinian Territories instead of inside Israel's internationally recognised borders.

As such, they are a massive obstacle to peace.

Indeed, the settlers frequently abuse and attack (often resulting in fatalities) Palestinians.

Amnesty International

Moreover, the settlers attack and destroy Palestinian property. They destroy crops cut down/burn Palestinian olive trees, contaminate Palestinian water supplies etc.

The settlers even attack Israeli/international peace activists.

Amnesty International Report

my point was that suicide bombers are bigger obstabcel because they kill people..

This report clearly shows that the construction of the illegal wall has "stepped up" in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, whilst the illegal settlements have been "expanded".

Moreover, to make way for this illegal construction, the Israelis have "seized and detroyed" large areas of Palestinian land.

The Palestinian people inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem have also been "increasingly confined to restricted areas and denied freedom of movement between towns and villages within the Occupied Territories".

Moreover, many Palestinians have been "cut off from their farmland, their main source of livelihood" as well as being "prevented from accessing their workplaces, education and health facilities, and other services".

No human being would accept such disgusting treatment of a whole population, yet you wonder why the Palestinians resort to resisting Israeli aggression.

well considering their reason for doing this IS the arab "resistance".....

Yes, at the expense of the Palestinian people.

because it would be much more logical for israel to do it at the expense of its own people...

If it was for "security purposes" it would and should be built inside Israel, otherwise it is an illegal construction.

the problem there is the israeli side of the border is not a strategcially logical place to put it. they would ahve to put it deeper in israel, which would be seen as ceding land to the arabs thus it is more logical fro them to do it in the west bank.

Why am I not surprised that a Zionist couldn't give a shit about International Law and Human Rights?

rolleyes.gif

actually thats more the american in me.

No.

Israel has not dismantled the parts of the wall that have been deemed to contravene International Law and Human Rights.

I dunno about internatioanl law , i was refering ot the ones the israeli court ruled on.

Israel illegally occupied Palestinian land long before any rockets or even suicide bombers entered Israel.

no back then it was tanks and migs...

QUOTE
the attacks on homes is due to the fact that those homes also double as base for the terrorist as well as manufacutring plants. israel does not choose the loacations that these things happen in.

The mass destruction of the homes of ordinary Palestinian people is a gross violation of Human Rights, surprisingly enough.

Under the rubble: House demolition and destruction of land and property

Indeed, it is a war crime.

It depends on the reason...

How does life-saving Hospital equipment run?

It most definitely is a collective punishment.

sadly it works on the same stuff that powers things for th emilitary. I am srue if israel could it would make it so that electicy flows to machines keeping nice old ladies alive, while at the same time denying it to the terrorist..sadly that doesnt exist

The superior claim to national territory is the attribution of a superior quality to members of the national group.

The denial of this claim to certain other ethnic groups is the attribution of an inferior status to their members.

Indeed, the acquisition of citizenship by descent is a purely biological mechanism: it is racist in the general sense, but it is also closest to the biological ideologies first described by the term "racism".

As such, I can state that Zionism is racism.

all nations deny citizne ship to some people and give it to others. Israeli citizenship is not given soley to jews.. all nations give citizenship at least in part on desent ( i am a US citizen based on my parents..)

I am talking about the land that constitutes the state of Israel proper and the Occupied Territories.

I figured-that is not historica palsetine though...

Most of the good land is in the West Bank, which is why the Israelis are strengthening their hold on that particular area of land.

well thats unusual...

The right to return is enshrined in International Law and is recognised by the UN.

so what?

The rocket attacks were not carried out by Hamas, but other organisations such as Islamic Jihad.

so?

QUOTE

Doesn't matter.

You have ignored every independent report I have linked so far.

the only source i have attacked has been EI, a blatant propagdna source. others like HRW and AI are pretty biased to, but i let them slide

Cutting off the population's electricity supply is a war crime that targets innocent people in general.

well sadly they can't taregt the electric cut offs...

theraven

7th July 2006, 03:40

So does anyone have any more thoughts on this issue?

Dean

8th July 2006, 17:28

First off, I should note that I support terrorism when it does not direct itself towards civilian targets and seeks freedom from an oppressive state, such as Israel or the U.S. However, the definition of the word is shaky (in Iraq that and "insurgency" appear to be interchangable).

Secondly, Israel doesn't just respond to attacks, and if it did in such a violent childish manner it would make no sense. They are attempting to instill fear in the hearts of the palestinians every day - by doing everything from stealing their land and demolishing their houses to create new settlements to torturing people and bombing civilian targets. Recently the Palestinian government has had to go into hiding because of Israel.

Lastly, look at all the human rights abuses mentioned by Amnesty International and decide whether or not they really give a shit about humans or human life:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-isr/index

theraven

9th July 2006, 07:09

First off, I should note that I support terrorism when it does not direct itself towards civilian targets and seeks freedom from an oppressive state, such as Israel or the U.S. However, the definition of the word is shaky (in Iraq that and "insurgency" appear to be interchangable).

so you dissporove of the arab terroms then.

Secondly, Israel doesn't just respond to attacks, and if it did in such a violent childish manner it would make no sense. They are attempting to instill fear in the hearts of the palestinians every day - by doing everything from stealing their land and demolishing their houses to create new settlements to torturing people and bombing civilian targets. Recently the Palestinian government has had to go into hiding because of Israel.

so what do you call what its doing now if not a resposne to attacks?

Dean

9th July 2006, 08:38

Actually, Israeli attacks are rarely a reponse, and if they were it would still be immoral because they are not even targetting chiefly militant forces. Most people in the occupied territories, Jews and Muslims, want peace. There are certain organizations that carry out attacks ONLY on military targets, as well. The so - called arab terrorists are not an entity in themselves to be targetted; Hamas is an entity. The Taliban is an entity. I don't agree with the stances of either party, but I do recognize that they are responses to real violence from Soviets, Americans, and Israelis. Israel, for instance, outside of what I linked to from Amnesty International (which clearly shows that Israel is not sijmply defending itself, but actively seekign to undermine human rights of all sorts) has been recently responsible for destroying the only power network that palestine has (apart from the settlements, as I understand it) and recently targetted the very head of a Palestinian government which has been seeking to recognize Israel, which would be a landmark victory for the peace process. Israel simply wants to lead a racist and theocratc war, and they know they can because the U.S. and the media censors are on their side, lest they be called anti-semetic.

EDIT: I disapprove of the terror attacks that kill civilians. However, militant Iraeli civilians who live in settlements, while certainly not deserving death, do have it coming. They are fueling a fire that is cause for the murder and theft from Palestinians every day. They are kind of like the slave master families that Nathanel killed.

And what is Israel doing, if not responding? Maintaining the status quo... You must understand that, under a "free market" "democracy," money rules the government and the government is ruled by conservative activity - businesses don't like change, because it unpredictably effects their power.

theraven

9th July 2006, 17:06

Actually, Israeli attacks are rarely a reponse, and if they were it would still be immoral because they are not even targetting chiefly militant forces.

what a croc of shit.

1)Israeli attacks are almost always a response, how did this infatida start? a jew went to visti the holiest site in his religoin. I guess the real reason why "israeli attacsk are rarely a reponse" is the very existaince of those darned jews in the area is a provaation
2) what do you mean the don't even target chielf militant forces? thats al they target. the problem is those miltants surroudn thmselvse with little kids.

Most people in the occupied territories, Jews and Muslims, want peace.

course..

There are certain organizations that carry out attacks ONLY on military targets, as well.

and these are?

The so - called arab terrorists are not an entity in themselves to be targetted; Hamas is an entity. The Taliban is an entity. I don't agree with the stances of either party, but I do recognize that they are responses to real violence from Soviets, Americans, and Israelis. Israel, for instance, outside of what I linked to from Amnesty International (which clearly shows that Israel is not sijmply defending itself, but actively seekign to undermine human rights of all sorts) has been recently responsible for destroying the only power network that palestine has (apart from the settlements, as I understand it) and recently targetted the very head of a Palestinian government which has been seeking to recognize Israel, which would be a landmark victory for the peace process. Israel simply wants to lead a racist and theocratc war, and they know they can because the U.S. and the media censors are on their side, lest they be called anti-semetic.

1) they threated the PM because they kidnapped an israeli solider, same with the removing of electriy, which wa s done for military puproses
2) the new PM was not "seeking to recognize israel" the orgianl documetn (written by arab prisoners) called for that, but when it was adopted that aprt had been edited out.

EDIT: I disapprove of the terror attacks that kill civilians. However, militant Iraeli civilians who live in settlements, while certainly not deserving death, do have it coming. They are fueling a fire that is cause for the murder and theft from Palestinians every day. They are kind of like the slave master families that Nathanel killed.

"do not desreve death but the have it coming" wow.

Dean

9th July 2006, 22:56

Ariel Sharon went to visit the site. I'd be angry if I saw Bush come to Ashland not because it's holy but because it's small and hardly represents him. Regardless, I can't say I agree with those racists who wont suffer a Jew to enter the temple. It also has little to do with the attacks on Israel. For those who are part of the intifada, they usually have no good life to live, view the state of Israel as oppressive (like most palestinians) qand want something to make them feel like they can do somethign about it. The peopel there that make them feel that way are either legitimate militants or muslim terrorists; either way you think you're changing your life for the better.

When the news reports calm, they usually leave out that ISraeli attacks are stll occuring, from demotion of houses to bombings and massacres. They almost always report suicide bombings, however, and when they do report how Israel has "responded" to it, with those words. Anybody knows that atomized bombers do not need a response and that if a holy war is occuring and another one blows themself up that the response should be to get rid of the source, not just randomly bomb areas of palestine. Right now they are trying to do both - randomly attack and torture peopel to find out who is responsbile. They can't win because such a long war costs billions and billions every year, and the US won't always spport their efforts.

I cannot say what forces in palestine only target mitary targets (though the militant Hamas claims this) nor can I say who is responsible for the terrorism. That has nothing to do with the point.

The MILITANT hamas organization, which is not controlled by the government, captured a single soldier. Even if they were linked more than in name, abducting a president is not a reasonable response. They have made it clear that a Palestinian government will be treated as a terrorist force, regardless of it's intention to create peace.

Those nationalist Israelis can be compared to a person waving a Nazi flag in front of Auschwitz while the Jews are being liberated from the camp. It is their own hatred coupled with stupidity that gets them killed.

In fact, debasing certain palestinians groups and people is completely irrelevant. Read Amnesty International's reports on Israel. What is your response to that? If you claim that it still supports yor oppressive Israel, than you eithe rdont care for human rights or life or are ignoring the facts.

theraven

9th July 2006, 23:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:57 PM
Ariel Sharon went to visit the site. I'd be angry if I saw Bush come to Ashland not because it's holy but because it's small and hardly represents him. Regardless, I can't say I agree with those racists who wont suffer a Jew to enter the temple. It also has little to do with the attacks on Israel. For those who are part of the intifada, they usually have no good life to live, view the state of Israel as oppressive (like most palestinians) qand want something to make them feel like they can do somethign about it. The peopel there that make them feel that way are either legitimate militants or muslim terrorists; either way you think you're changing your life for the better.

When the news reports calm, they usually leave out that ISraeli attacks are stll occuring, from demotion of houses to bombings and massacres. They almost always report suicide bombings, however, and when they do report how Israel has "responded" to it, with those words. Anybody knows that atomized bombers do not need a response and that if a holy war is occuring and another one blows themself up that the response should be to get rid of the source, not just randomly bomb areas of palestine. Right now they are trying to do both - randomly attack and torture peopel to find out who is responsbile. They can't win because such a long war costs billions and billions every year, and the US won't always spport their efforts.

I cannot say what forces in palestine only target mitary targets (though the militant Hamas claims this) nor can I say who is responsible for the terrorism. That has nothing to do with the point.

The MILITANT hamas organization, which is not controlled by the government, captured a single soldier. Even if they were linked more than in name, abducting a president is not a reasonable response. They have made it clear that a Palestinian government will be treated as a terrorist force, regardless of it's intention to create peace.

Those nationalist Israelis can be compared to a person waving a Nazi flag in front of Auschwitz while the Jews are being liberated from the camp. It is their own hatred coupled with stupidity that gets them killed.

In fact, debasing certain palestinians groups and people is completely irrelevant. Read Amnesty International's reports on Israel. What is your response to that? If you claim that it still supports yor oppressive Israel, than you eithe rdont care for human rights or life or are ignoring the facts.
1) this infatida started with ariel sharons visit to the temple mount-this is undisputed

2) what news reports do you watch?

3) militant hamas and political hamas are the same group, one is the political wing the other is the mitant wing. they are like sinn fien and the IRA. two sides pushing the same goal.

4) how did u manage to fit a "israel=nazi" comparisn in there? that was a totally illogical comaprsion and totaly out of place. what are you a parody of a pro-terrorist lib?