Malaclypse the Younger

I would hope that it's because they've finally decided to follow their own policy on not calling opportunistic elections. But it's probably more likely because we're in tough economics times right now, and calling an election in an attempt to grab a few more seats would likely backfire and result in even fewer seats.

The only reasons to keep alive those who are suffering and want to die are sentimentality and selfishness. We wouldn't let a dog suffer incurable, inoperable, painful terminal disease. Why do we insist that those of our own species must suffer miserable, excruciating pain?

Ah, those pesky facts. Always getting in the way with you, aren't they?

And, flag burning hurts no one. Republicans seem to love to find ways to hurt everyone that isn't a blind follower of the party. Very Soviet-style politics.

Yes, sometimes they have done that. Actually, it's pretty equal tit for tat with both Israelis and Palestinians. It is not even really a war of Jews and Arabs, since many Arabs live in Israel. It's mostly politicians fighting over dirt.

I will do no such thing. I will not do your dirty work for you.

I asked you to back yourself up with facts. If that's too much of a chore, perhaps you should leave intellectual debate to people who aren't as lazy as you.

Then I guess you are incredibly stupid, because you already did agree with me. Not all ordnance is indiscriminate. It is much easier to aim a rifle than it is to aim flechettes.

If you don't provoke people to attack you in the first place, there is no reason to kill them for attacking you.

Your assumption is entirely incorrect. Try again. I will continue to conclude that bombs falling on houses is an atrocity, even if it makes me sad. It's not the fact that it makes me sad that makes it an atrocity. It is the suffering of the individuals living in the house that got bombed that makes it an atrocity. I'm suggesting that there are better ways of dealing with these kinds of problems, which don't involve provoking violent reactions from people who are already known to react violently.

Demonise whom? Benjamin Netanyahu has not said anything of lesser calibre of late. He spoke with Barack Obama about making peace and then promptly began more beligerant actions that anyone should know by now will provoke a violent response, which Israeli politicians will then use to justify killing more Palestinians. That is how this game has been played for quite a long time.

Ah, name calling. The last refuge of losers. No, I am not too lazy. You are making a claim, you back it up. But now that we've got those horrible, pesky facts out of the way, maybe you'll feel a little more ready to discuss them. Oh, do you do that frequently? Given some of the other race-based topics around here, I would assume so. What difference would it make? You've already agreed that the IDF uses flechette rounds, with lethal effect on civilians. Flechette rounds are a type of indescriminate ordnance, making it impossible to claim that the IDF does not fire without discretion. Regardless of what the Geneva convention says about militants hiding amongst civilians, there are much better ways of killing one person in a crowd than using wide-dispersal artillery. You would have to be incredibly dishonest to say anything to the contrary.

Les Griswold?

Bill Clinton didn't actually commit any crime. One of these things is not like the others.

If Larry O'Brien can get away with stealing an election, why wouldn't Brian Mulroney get away with his slimey affairs? Despite what the law says, politicians are above the law.

(In reference to the thread topic) What a piece of trash of a question. Why do random numbers of people do horrible things to other random numbers of people, regardless of skin colour? Will we ever know? Probably not! Take your racist garbage elsewhere, boneheads!

I'm paraphrasing, of course. The actual response is something more like "We will continue to marginalise and kill every last Palestinian if we feel like it." Not much less than that has recently been said by Benjamin Netanyahu, directly after talks with Barak Obama in which he said that Israel would work on peace, and quickly did the usual about face and started building more houses in contentious settlement areas.

Quite the opposite, it happens all the time. See my previous reference to flechette rounds and tanks. It is not unheard of for the to IDF shoot flechette rounds into crowded areas. At least nine. There may be more. Regardless, it is a type of indiscriminate firing, and it is done on purpose. This is only one example among the many, many atrocities committed by the IDF. Countless homes have been bulldozed with the residents still inside. Bombs have been dropped and missiles fired into civilian areas by no accident at all. Oh, those pesky facts, always getting in the way, aren't they? Where is a link to your source? Are you suggesting that the civilians who had their homes bulldozed or bombed just shouldn't have been living where they were, where Palestinians have been living for centuries?

I don't think there is any difference at all. Especially when the diplomatic answer to having "accidentally" killed civilians is "So what?"

Then what is the difference between strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing up the "enemy's civilians" and shooting into a crowd of the "enemy's civilians" to take out one guy and killing many others in the process? That's quite the misread. "Flechette" and "sabot" look nothing alike. It's been around since the first world war. I'd like you to point out the specific parts of the Geneva Convention that says any of this. Whether it is the intent or not, it is what is happening. The IDF is pretty unapologetic about killing Palestinian civilians, and often does it with little concern from their superiors.

The goal is achieved, and many civilians die in the process. What is the difference? No, I mean flechette. Flechettes are tiny steel darts shot out of a tank. Then what is the difference between "accidentally" killing civilians and doing it "on purpose", if the intent is to kill without discretion in both cases?

Who cares what the goal is if it still kills civilians? Is firing flechette rounds from a tank into a crowded market only supposed to kill "combatants"?

Nope. Gandhi would probably advocate non-violence for the Palestinians.

Well, it has been so far. Are you changing your argument now?

Not at all. You're very sorely mistaken, and incredibly ignorant.