dub

an interesting way to debate. just because you are posting an article from the geneva convention, it doesn't mean that the circumstances and israel's actions is legal. the geneva convention was used by AI, HRW and the red cross when they made their conclusion and their conclusion was that israel violated international law. so tell me when the Dancer fact finding mission was in gaza to investigate AI, HRW and the red cross reports where they've concluded that israel violated international law?

uh, okay. don't you think the GOP has become an embarrassment? really? who can admit to being a supporter anymore?

dancer loves the attention. the rest of you are jealous. ..and not to worry, i'll continue to share my thoughts.

birther movement? it's become as desperate as Dancer's attempt at trying to justify israel's war crimes. i mean, c'mon.

i mean, c'mon. tea bagging?

here is a concerned mother.

there are only two types of people left in the republican party: (1) certifiable wingnuts, and (2) paid staffers

AI and HRW have concluded that israel has committed war crimes based on investigations by professionals who know what they're doing and talking about. you have concluded that israel has not committed war crimes based on nothing but crap. you fail again.

how do you feel about reagan's handling of the hostages in iran?

not sure what you're babbling about now. Deliberately using civilians to deter attacks on military targets amounts to “human shielding,” which is a war crime[67] In the preceding cases, Human Rights Watch either could not determine or the evidence did not indicate that militants launched rockets from areas close to civilians with the intention of deterring Israeli forces from counter-attacking. from the report. how do you feel about HRW's report on israel's war crimes? is HRW another biased and anti-semite organization when they criticize israel?

eh? i mean, i can keep repeating it, and you can keep acting dumb and pretending that i haven't already said that: "i'm against all forms of attacks that kill civilians. this includes suicide and rocket attacks" so what say you? are you going to avoid another obvious? can you tell us why you're against israeli civilians being killed, but you're okay with palestinian civilians being killed? is it because you think "arabs are baby killers"?

"violations by one party to a conflict never justify violations by the other" so you accept HRW's report on hamas' war crimes but not their report on IDF's war crimes?

the hamas spokesman sounds a lot like the israeli spokesman. always in denial.

it seems like any time a group is accused of committing war crimes by these human rights ogranizations, they right away dismiss the allegations as 'biased'. both hamas and IDF do it.

that's what guerrilla war is. none of these militant groups will come out on the street and start shooting at a tank, airplane or helicopters. of course they're going to hide and avoid being killed. even if these militant groups are hiding in buildings, the amnesty report concluded that hamas did not use civilians as human shield. it did conclude, however, that israel used civilians, including children, as human shields many times. you are either against civilians being killed or you're okay with it. it seems that you're against israeli civlians being killed but okay with palestinian civilians being killed. it doesn't matter how many times it's been repeated to you or you repeat it to yourself, jews/israelis are not the chosen people and they do not get special privileges.

the problem with your constant babbling about suicide attacks is that i have not seen anyone here excusing or justifying them. however, you and a few other extremists here try to justify israel's killing of civilians. - a suicide attack or a rocket attack might kill civilians - an artillery shell hitting a building kills civilians (usually a lot more) before you go back to your babbling about arabs killing babies, check to see how many palestinian babies have been killed as compared to israeli babies. but i guess to you it doesn't matter because they're just arabs. i guess we're seeing another biased view against israel. damn you reality!

i don't care for him and i didn't cheer for his release. do you cheer for numerous IDF personnel when they kill children and then are released through israeli military kangaroo courts? what about when goldstein killed the arabs? did you stand up looking for a high five?

you're still pathetic. so if samir kuntar represents arabs then baruch goldstein represents jews? you're still a pathetic, racist bottom feeder.

you're flustered and babbling nonsense for the sake of getting a reply in. you at least made an effort to mask your racism before, but now it's, you know, the arab way to smash the brains of babies. thanx for coming out, you pathetic racist bottom feeder.

how does the above irrelevant list of gibberish and opinions explain how gandhi was a supporter of the nazis? in the spirit of dancer's ridiculous debating tactics, here are 5 points that explains how israel supports the nazi ideology. lets refresh: 1) one race is superior to another 2) taking away a person's property is okay as long as they're not jewish 3) doesn't matter who criticizes israel, as long as they do, they're anti-semites and we will not accept their criticism 4) killing civilians in the name of killing terrorists is how you justify the killing 5) all actions are justified in the name of self-defense

you can't even follow a point. actually, i don't think you're that simple. i think you're barely an average intellect who lies and says whatever it takes to push his nationalist agenda. who else would equate gandhi sending a letter to hitler to stop the violence to gandhi supporting the nazis.

the 1/2 million killed during those years were not a result of gandhi's non-violent approach. you'd have to be a simpleton or a dishonest person to try to sell something like that. there were many groups in india during that time and the struggle against the colonist was not the only event that was unfolding.

you're wrong way too often. according to you, the strike that involved: 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors. and 50,000 men over 60 RAF stations in India and Ceylon, including the then largest RAF base at Kanpur and RAF bases as far as Singapore. were a non-factor. right. must you make the truth and reality weep every the time you post?

although a minor one, it's still a satisfaction when you don't reply to the other comments. every time, it shows how you're unwilling to deal with the truth. eh? The Royal Indian Navy mutiny (also called the Bombay Mutiny) encompasses a total strike and subsequent mutiny by Indian sailors of the Royal Indian Navy on board ship and shore establishments at Bombay (Mumbai) harbour on 18 February 1946. From the initial flashpoint in Bombay, the mutiny spread and found support throughout British India, from Karachi to Calcutta and ultimately came to involve 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors. and The Royal Air Force Mutiny of 1946 was a mutiny on approximately Royal Air Force stations in India and South Asia in January 1946 over conditions of slow demobilization and conditions of service following the end of World War II. The mutiny, in reality a strike action, began at Karachi and later spread to involve nearly 50,000 men over 60 RAF stations in India and Ceylon, including the then largest RAF base at Kanpur and RAF bases as far as Singapore. all were a non-factor. right. maybe the grand mufti had something to do with this? where is DoP to confirm this?

all violence were against gandhi's wishes. Socialist Alternative? regular visitor to this site? so you finally were able to find an opinion piece where a sentence, sort of, supported your point? what about the rest of the points that were made in the article? are you still saying that gandhi supported the nazis? it was different factors that contributed to the british leaving. one of the biggest contributors was gandhi's approach that included the general strikes or non-cooperation. other reasons were: - world war 1 and 2 which left britain weak - the mutinies by indian soldiers