More child murders and assassination threats

[kakuma]

this thread is, in part, about Israel issuing assassination threats to the newly elected Hamas Leader. if Europe doesn't support this man soon, they may well kill him. the only reason Arafat lasted so long was because Europe supported Arafat and condemned Israel's and USA's refusal to recognise as the leader of the Palestinian people.

it's also about more Palestinian kids who were murdered.

i wouldnt ever argue in favour of israel or the US or the EU with regards to this matter. its fucking disgusting the way israel behaves. its also disgusting (but not surprising) that the richest nations on earth will do anything about it

it's also disgusting that to get their point across, palestinian nationalists think they have to murder innocent israeli's who are just people like you and me going about our lives

the whole thing is disgusting, but i would stilll condemn anybody murdering innocent people to get their point across

its like the people who blew up london and madrid and loads of other places. there is a reason why they did it, but they are still fucking cunts

 

[ViolentPanda]

Attacking Iran is absolutely not what I believe should happen. You can't point to me advocating an attack on Iran. Have you already run out of steam? You have to now make things up?

Make something up? You appear to have just invented that I said you're advocating an attack on Iran, so who's making things up?
Stating that I reckon you believe something should happen isn't the same as saying that you advocate it

The US has the capability to inflict more damage on Iran than any other country or organization in the world. The US would not have to go nuclear. They could bomb Iran for a month straight. No electricity or running water in the country and economy in shambles. That is why the US has to take over dealing with Iran when the EU fails.

Another good example of you not reading what's written.
The "nuclear option" has been considered by your people because some of those silkworm batteries are based in geological formations that, alongside structural reinforcement, would withstand massive bombardment. Hit the place with HE and you don't even scratch it, use fuel-air blasts and you kill the personnel but don't destroy the structure, so the site is still usable. That's why nukes got considered.
It isn't about how much you wave your dick. It's about what you do with it.

Might counts in the Israeli, Palestinian conflict. I think maybe the Bush administration would agree with you initially. The children started killing each other again after Clinton tried to broker a peace deal and send everyone to their corners. Than the intifada. The Bush administration came with the intention of not micromanaging the conflict like Clinton. I mean look what happened after Clinton got involved.

Exactly why do you believe that "might counts", "big stick" theory?
Diplomacy and the ability to broker an honest deal with honest mediation between honest parties is what counts, and that's exactly what the Israeli and Palestinian people haven't had.

And everyone turned out to be angry about this. EU, UN, Muslim countries stated America's involvement in the peace process was essential. How can AMerica not stay engaged, don't they know the anger this conflict causes among millions of Muslims? The Bush administration needs to be involved they said

And when twe get reinvolved the complaining starts again.

"Re-involved"?
Are you really so woefully informed about the actions of your own foreign policy elite that you don't realise that you haven't been un-involved for 30+ years? The photo-op posturings of your president at whatever time, or of my prime minister are immaterial, they're just a gloss on an ongoing process. What people complain about is when those posturings, those claims of credit for "making things happen" designed to garner votes, interfere in the lives of people.

Poor people, can't live with the US can't live without the US.

And therein lies your delusion.

 

[kakuma]

That's just it, NOTHING, no excuse or reason whatsoever, can actually justify the killings by either side. The taking of a life isn't a justifiable act.

what we should, as human beings, do is to examine why people do this, and measure their act accordingly; we have to understand why people take these actions, whether as individuals or as part of a collective entity like an army.

And then we have to do our best to remedy the situation so that it can't recur.

That's not as easy as saying "hey, let's have a peace plan, we'll let those nice Yanks set it up, and the towelheads'll just have to bite the bullet" like has been happening for the last 25 years, but it's a lot more likely to work than the current sledgeload of shit that the Yanks are trying to serve up.

completely agree

knew i'd get some sense out of you eventually

i'm not prepared to speculate about how, thats well beyond me, but killing is not the answer, for israelis or palestinians

 

[moono]

BFF;

As it happens I quite dislike Israel

Classic.

What, more or less than warm milk or wet socks ?

 

[Julie]

Makes you wonder what was in his hand when he said that, doesn't it?

 

[mears]

Make something up? You appear to have just invented that I said you're advocating an attack on Iran, so who's making things up?
Stating that I reckon you believe something should happen isn't the same as saying that you advocate it

Another good example of you not reading what's written.
The "nuclear option" has been considered by your people because some of those silkworm batteries are based in geological formations that, alongside structural reinforcement, would withstand massive bombardment. Hit the place with HE and you don't even scratch it, use fuel-air blasts and you kill the personnel but don't destroy the structure, so the site is still usable. That's why nukes got considered.
It isn't about how much you wave your dick. It's about what you do with it.

Exactly why do you believe that "might counts", "big stick" theory?
Diplomacy and the ability to broker an honest deal with honest mediation between honest parties is what counts, and that's exactly what the Israeli and Palestinian people haven't had.

"Re-involved"?
Are you really so woefully informed about the actions of your own foreign policy elite that you don't realise that you haven't been un-involved for 30+ years? The photo-op posturings of your president at whatever time, or of my prime minister are immaterial, they're just a gloss on an ongoing process. What people complain about is when those posturings, those claims of credit for "making things happen" designed to garner votes, interfere in the lives of people.

And therein lies your delusion.

"Your "military scenarios" (I believe you mentioned Tomahawks and planes) aren't "scenarios", they're what you believe should happen"

Those are you words you complete idiot. You believe I am advocating a US strike on Iran. Are there two of you?

I am not going to parse words. I don't support an American attack on Iran. Don't try to makeup what you believe my positions to be.

The Soviets considered nuclear options on the US and Western Europe. The US on Siberia and China. Pakistan and India consider nuclear options. So yes, the US military being the strongest, best equipped army in the world would play out many military scenarios as nearly every country practices on the planet. Sour grapes.

The players in the conflict want American involvement, if they wanted the EU or UN they would be the main players. You have to agree on a referee to play the game.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's just it, NOTHING, no excuse or reason whatsoever, can actually justify the killings by either side. The taking of a life isn't a justifiable act.

Weren't you a soldier at one time?

 

[nino_savatte]

Weren't you a soldier at one time?

Aren't you a <giggles> lawyer? PMSL!!!!!!

 

[nino_savatte]

"Your "military scenarios" (I believe you mentioned Tomahawks and planes) aren't "scenarios", they're what you believe should happen"

Those are you words you complete idiot. You believe I am advocating a US strike on Iran. Are there two of you?

I am not going to parse words. I don't support an American attack on Iran. Don't try to makeup what you believe my positions to be.

The Soviets considered nuclear options on the US and Western Europe. The US on Siberia and China. Pakistan and India consider nuclear options. So yes, the US military being the strongest, best equipped army in the world would play out many military scenarios as nearly every country practices on the planet. Sour grapes.

The players in the conflict want American involvement, if they wanted the EU or UN they would be the main players. You have to agree on a referee to play the game.

Have you ever been in the military, mears?

No? Well shut the fuck up.

 

[ViolentPanda]

"Your "military scenarios" (I believe you mentioned Tomahawks and planes) aren't "scenarios", they're what you believe should happen"

Those are you words you complete idiot. You believe I am advocating a US strike on Iran. Are there two of you?

I'll say it again as you're obviously hard-of-thought:
I reckon that's what you believe.

If you were advocating something that'd mean you were actively promoting it.
p

I am not going to parse words. I don't support an American attack on Iran. Don't try to makeup what you believe my positions to be.

I'm glad you're not going to "parse words", your understanding of English appears to be so abyssmal that you'd make a hash of it.

The Soviets considered nuclear options on the US and Western Europe. The US on Siberia and China. Pakistan and India consider nuclear options. So yes, the US military being the strongest, best equipped army in the world would play out many military scenarios as nearly every country practices on the planet. Sour grapes.

Uh, wanna tell me why what anyone else does is relevant to the case in point, or are you going to admit that your point is fatuous?

The players in the conflict want American involvement, if they wanted the EU or UN they would be the main players. You have to agree on a referee to play the game.

Wrong, the Israelis want American involvement, the other "main player" is pretty well aware of how duplicitous and partisan you are. As for agreeing on a referee, the US forced itself into the process to make sure Israel came out on top. Most people know and acknowledge that, why don't you?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Weren't you a soldier at one time?

Yes.

What's your point?

Do you believe people only ever act in a justified manner? We're human; many of our actions are contradictory to our beliefs. I don't believe killing is ever justified, but it's something I was willing to do for certain reasons in certain circumstances. For some people those circumstances might be defence of personal property (how many "good Christians" who own guns are perfectly willing to break the sixth commandment if their property is trespassed on?). For me it was defence of nation.
I take responsibility for my own actions. Anything I might have done in the army is a matter for me and my conscience, which means I don't put the blame on the army or on politicians for my actions, only on myself.

 

[mears]

I'll say it again as you're obviously hard-of-thought:
I reckon that's what you believe.

If you were advocating something that'd mean you were actively promoting it.
p
I'm glad you're not going to "parse words", your understanding of English appears to be so abyssmal that you'd make a hash of it.

Uh, wanna tell me why what anyone else does is relevant to the case in point, or are you going to admit that your point is fatuous?

Wrong, the Israelis want American involvement, the other "main player" is pretty well aware of how duplicitous and partisan you are. As for agreeing on a referee, the US forced itself into the process to make sure Israel came out on top. Most people know and acknowledge that, why don't you?

You are Jewish and you believe Israel has a right to exist. If Israel wants American involvement than so it goes. If one of the participants won't participate without a certain official than tough shit.

You believe the Americans are partisan but the Palestinian leadership doesn't neccessarily agree with that. They complained when Bush disengaged after Clintons attempts at peace. And Clinton gave Arafat a good deal, as good as it probably gets. I never heard Abbas complaim about Bush.

You are a strange Jew. You are farther to the right on this issue than many in the Palestinian Authority.

 

[nino_savatte]

You are a strange Jew. You are farther to the right on this issue than many in the Palestinian Authority.

Only a mind as closed and as one-dimensional as yours could come up with a reply like this. You obviously understand little about Jews, Judaism, Zionism and the state of Israel.

It would no doubt fuck up your program if anyone were to tell you that there is an Israeli peace movement...but through the efforts of you and others like you (and your media) this movement goes largely unnoticed.

Israel is not the sum total of Jews, Jewishness or anything associated with those things.

I speak your weight. Insert coin.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You are Jewish and you believe Israel has a right to exist. If Israel wants American involvement than so it goes. If one of the participants won't participate without a certain official than tough shit.

What does my religion and culture have to do with anything?
Surely you're not ignorant enough to believe that commits me to a "party line"?
Or perhaps you are.

You believe the Americans are partisan but the Palestinian leadership doesn't neccessarily agree with that.

Which Palestinian leadership would that be? Arafat's by any chance?

They complained when Bush disengaged after Clintons attempts at peace. And Clinton gave Arafat a good deal, as good as it probably gets. I never heard Abbas complaim about Bush.

A "deal" wasn't in Clinton's gift.

You are a strange Jew.

Perhaps by your standards I am, by the standards of many of my contemporaries I'm perfectly normal.

You are farther to the right on this issue than many in the Palestinian Authority.

Would those be the leftovers from Fatah you're talking about, the ones who've been lining their bank accounts with US and EU money while selling out their poorer brethren?
More than likely, so I doubt I'm further right than they are, they appear to have bought into the American ideal of taking what you can grab to heart rather more than I ever would.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Only a mind as closed and as one-dimensional as yours could come up with a reply like this. You obviously understand little about Jews, Judaism, Zionism and the state of Israel.

It would no doubt fuck up your program if anyone were to tell you that there is an Israeli peace movement...but through the efforts of you and others like you (and your media) this movement goes largely unnoticed.

Israel is not the sum total of Jews, Jewishness or anything associated with those things.

I speak your weight. Insert coin.

Israel is pretty much (IMO of course) a minority representation of Jews and Jewishness, Zionism even more so, but I've no doubt that because the stuff mears reads in his NYT represents an American opinion he extrapolates that to be an opinion held by the civilised world.

The fact that the NYT is legendary for towing the state department line on Israel and of mostly pursuing a Zionism-centric agenda on the subject isn't ever considered a factor worthy of investigation, just as long as those boys are pulling for the US rather than anyone else.

 

[nino_savatte]

Israel is pretty much (IMO of course) a minority representation of Jews and Jewishness, Zionism even more so, but I've no doubt that because the stuff mears reads in his NYT represents an American opinion he extrapolates that to be an opinion held by the civilised world.

The fact that the NYT is legendary for towing the state department line on Israel and of mostly pursuing a Zionism-centric agenda on the subject isn't ever considered a factor worthy of investigation, just as long as those boys are pulling for the US rather than anyone else.

This is what irks me about those US right wingers who dismiss the NYT as "liberal". Like many papers it may have some writers who are left of centre but the paper, as a whole, is like any other. In the past, the NYT has never shied away from spouting the pro-Israel line and it doesn't look likely to do so anytime soon.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't believe killing is ever justified, but it's something I was willing to do for certain reasons in certain circumstances.

I think that is a contradictory statement.

 

[mears]

What does my religion and culture have to do with anything?
Surely you're not ignorant enough to believe that commits me to a "party line"?
Or perhaps you are.

Which Palestinian leadership would that be? Arafat's by any chance?

A "deal" wasn't in Clinton's gift.

Perhaps by your standards I am, by the standards of many of my contemporaries I'm perfectly normal.

Would those be the leftovers from Fatah you're talking about, the ones who've been lining their bank accounts with US and EU money while selling out their poorer brethren?
More than likely, so I doubt I'm further right than they are, they appear to have bought into the American ideal of taking what you can grab to heart rather more than I ever would.

No party line, I just wanted to confirm that you are in fact Jewish and believe in the existence of Israel

Clinton's proposal seemed like a good deal. The right of return of 3 million Palestinians is really not conceivable now is it? If that is what you are getting at.

The Palestinian leadership has been corrupt. That was a big problem and hopefully will change. But the Palestinian people have to get money from someplace, as do the Israelis. They can't run their governments without handouts. If Arab governments want to take care of the Palestinians than they should by all means. I'm sure they will be willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars a year in that vast oil wealth to help their brethren.

 

[moono]

I think that is a contradictory statement.

I can't see that it's contradictory. I've done things that I can't justify.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think that is a contradictory statement.

No Johnny, if you actually had thought about it then you'd know that it isn't at all contradictory.

We break rules and transgress personal and normative moral codes all the time, all I did was set out to myself parameters within which I'd be willing to set mine, aside and then stick by those parameters while I served in the army.

 

[tangentlama]

No party line, I just wanted to confirm that you are in fact Jewish and believe in the existence of Israel.

singularly among the most annoying statements i can think of is this: "believe in the existence of Israel" - it's not the fucking toothfairy, or santa claus, to be 'believed' in. it exists. conflict is about the fact that israel believes that more of israel exists than palestine does (greater israel).
on the whole, when israel says that Palestinians don't recognise Israel, they do, but not as an illegal occupier of Palestine or 'Greater Israel'.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No Johnny, if you actually had thought about it then you'd know that it isn't at all contradictory.

We break rules and transgress personal and normative moral codes all the time, all I did was set out to myself parameters within which I'd be willing to set mine, aside and then stick by those parameters while I served in the army.

You were prepared to do certain things in defence of your nation.

That was your justification.

 

[mears]

singularly among the most annoying statements i can think of is this: "believe in the existence of Israel" - it's not the fucking toothfairy, or santa claus, to be 'believed' in. it exists. conflict is about the fact that israel believes that more of israel exists than palestine does (greater israel).
on the whole, when israel says that Palestinians don't recognise Israel, they do, but not as an illegal occupier of Palestine or 'Greater Israel'.

To not believe in the existence of Israel is to want it not to exist. Its not recognizing the legitimacy of a nation state. Maybe Americans are just very open. Sometimes its good to just tell it the way you see it, and not dress it up in long paragraphs and fancy language.

You either believe Israel should remain a nation state or you don't. Its simple and straightforward.

But tough for the boys on Urban to answer

 

[spring-peeper]

But tough for the boys on Urban to answer

I guess that eliminates me from the conversion.

SEXIST!!!

 

[moono]

Good evening, ma'm, nice to make your acquaintance.

You either believe Israel should remain a nation state or you don't. Its simple and straightforward.

Not at all. A lot depends upon how Israel conducts itself.

 

[spring-peeper]

Good evening, ma'm, nice to make your acquaintance.



Not at all. A lot depends upon how Israel conducts itself.

Finally, a gentleman.

It's is a pleasure to meet a person of such charm and manners on a thread such as this.

 

[big footed fred]

BFF;


Classic.

What, more or less than warm milk or wet socks ?

So what about the charge of racism and the further charge of supporting murder ?

I know that you won't answer as you are guilty of the charges and you are afraid to admit your own culpability.
There was I thinking those who supported terrorism in the name of allah were proud of their sick fanaticism and not wimps without the courage to admit their stupidity.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You were prepared to do certain things in defence of your nation.

That was your justification.

Nope, to accept that an action is justified is to accept that (at least in the final analysis) the action is right or correct.

I don't. I didn't then and I don't now, but that's a matter for my conscience.

 

[ViolentPanda]

To not believe in the existence of Israel is to want it not to exist. Its not recognizing the legitimacy of a nation state. Maybe Americans are just very open. Sometimes its good to just tell it the way you see it, and not dress it up in long paragraphs and fancy language.

You either believe Israel should remain a nation state or you don't. Its simple and straightforward.

But tough for the boys on Urban to answer

Ah, setting yourself up as a "straight talker" who cuts through the bullshit.

Equally, it may be that what you are is actually a fool who doesn't understand the subtleties of the situation and so blunders around like a sex-crazed hog.

 

[nino_savatte]

To not believe in the existence of Israel is to want it not to exist. Its not recognizing the legitimacy of a nation state. Maybe Americans are just very open. Sometimes its good to just tell it the way you see it, and not dress it up in long paragraphs and fancy language.

You either believe Israel should remain a nation state or you don't. Its simple and straightforward.

But tough for the boys on Urban to answer

You're not making any sense here, mears and yo've not attempted to engage. All you've done is chuck out the discourse-killing line of "do you believe in the existence of Israel"? As tangentlama points out, Israel is not the toothfairy or Santa Claus (or in your case, Ayn Rand).

This is why you are no better than a speak-your-weight machine: all you can do is churn out cliche after cliche in response to a carefully thought out post.

I speak your weight. Insert coin.