Bob

And of course, none of this has anything to do with the video. I see you're succeeding in derailing the thread into irrelevant topics by baiting Pliny. Pliny, take a moment to consider that nothing Michael Hardner has stated has anything to do with the videos posted. Also consider that without even watching the videos, which are pure common sense from a stand-up journalist like John Stossel, were immediately written off by Michael Hardner as a "Fox News hit piece". What was "hit", exactly? Only Michael knows.

So you're denying that the demographic trends show that the countries of Europe (and also those in North America) will become Muslim-majority states in the not-so-distant future? How is presenting the facts of demographic change "fear-mongering"? Perhaps you're disputing these facts, perhaps you're suggesting that the video is lying? Maybe these people don't want to live in Muslim-majority states, and maybe they're allowed to be concerned about these changes. You can't just say "fear-mongering" and ignore the demographic trends that the video brings to light, as if it's not something people have the right to be concerned about.

The Palestinians would be GREATLY hurt (at least in the short-term) if Rand Paul's ideas were implemented. You only like it because you think Israel depends on American foreign aid (about 1% of our economy), and you want to hurt Israel. What you're ignorant of, however, is that foreign aid to the Palestinians composes over 50% of their economy (I think about 40% of total foreign aid to the Palestinians comes from the USA in one way or another). In my view, eventually this needs to be done. Palestinians especially needs to get off of financial life support and feel the short-term hurt in order to be pressured into engaging in meaningful economic reform. No matter how much they fail, they keep getting more and more money. The incentives are all backwards. Foreign aid to the Palestinians, in my view, at the very least should be contingent on meaningful economic (as well as social/political) reform and development. In other words, they should only be rewarded if they show economic success.

The very name "Palestinian", used to describe the Arab residents of the area, is itself politicized in order to associate themselves with the land. The name is mentioned in the Torah, as are the people who were called "Filistinim" ("Palestinians" in Hebrew). Modern day Arabs who refer to themselves as "Palestinians" are, however, just Arabs. They're pretty much indistinguishable from neighbouring Arabs. Anyways, the falsehood that is Palestinian nationalism is entirely another subject. I guess I was silly to think to think that bud might actually answer a simple and straightforward question explaining Arab/Palestinian violence pre-1967.

There is no control of movement within Gaza. Anyways, I can see you're not going to answer my simple question. We both know why.

How do you control a border? Israel controls its side of its shared border with Gaza. Gaza controls its side of the shared border. The air and sea blockade is simply a necessary arms embargo to defend Israeli security. It is entirely legitimate.

Answer the question, please. What were the Arabs "defending" themselves from before the Six-Day War? Why were they fighting Israel and the Jewish people? I wasn't making a "fanatical and extremist argument", I am asking you a simple question. You claim that Palestinian violence is resistance and self-defense, resulting from occupation, violation of Palestinian human rights at the hands of Israel, settlements, and the blockade on Gaza. So, I ask again - what was the cause of Arab violence before 1967, which was before the occupation, the settlement enterprise, and blockade (which was put into place in 2006)?

Right, which have nothing at all to do with the first part regarding panhandlers. Perhaps you need some medication for your ADD so that you might have the patience to actually watch a full twenty minutes of video before running back in here to comment on something you haven't watched.

So here you are, still posting, and still not saying anything specific about the videos posted. Rather, you just babble about generalities (i.e. "Fox News hit piece") and ask for "evidence" to disprove claims that weren't even made in the videos - which you'd have known had you actually watched the videos prior to commenting.

"Fat cats"

Also, Gaza isn't occupied. I guess they're "defending" their right to arm themselves to launch more rockets into Israel, smuggle terrorists across the border, and plant IEDs wherever they can.

So what were the Arabs (before the term "Palestinian" really came into being) "defending" themselves from before 1967, bud? Also, nobody compared the Palestinians to Nazis.

It's not "shock value", at all. If you suffer from ADD and are unable to watch any video longer than a few minutes, that's fine. But you're continuing to talk about videos you haven't watched. It's ridiculous. John Stossel is hardly just some ridiculous journalist that you can just write off. It's clear you haven't come to this thread to contribute anything. Spare me your little "anecdotes don't equal science" argumentation. We've seen it before, and not every thread can be turned into a game of statistics. You're acting like you just discovered the scientific method and can no longer evaluate anything based on experience and intuition, anymore.

First of all, the above hypothetical example you provided is simplistic. Israel intelligence does much more to reduce civilian damage. What you're intentionally ignoring, obviously, is the fact that the targeted individual threatens the lives of Israelis/Jews. It's quite simply a choice between him or us. That's an easy choice to make.

Like I said, having a conversation with you a complete waste of time.

"Brutal occupation"

"Fox News hit piece"? Are you serious? Can you make it any more obvious that you didn't watch the videos? Don't waste more time in here unless you actually watch the videos. There's nothing outrageous in there, at all. If you've got a specific point you want to address, go for it. Otherwise save yourself the energy of ranting about nothing.

Yet both Israel and Hamas intentionally kill civilians, right?

The same world that looked the other way at the best of times and was complicit in the worst of time while we were being put into ovens, right? Gotcha. Keep waiting for that Palestinian state with "East Jerusalem" as its capital!

I don't believe that for a second, as hundreds of millions of dollars were unaccounted for. I know, and good.

Let me ask you a simple question - who has the moral highground, Hamas or the IDF? What about Hezbollah and the IDF? Which force demonstrates a higher moral code of armed conduct? This is an easy question to answer.

I know you're not so stupid as to actually believe what you've been writing in this thread about the meaning of "intentional". In other words, you're lying. Just give it up, already. Israel doesn't intentionally kill civilians. Hamas and other terrorists, on the other hand not only target civilians but use civilians as human shields. End of story.

Ever consider the fact that some numbers are difficult to collect? You think Stossel spoke with fifty beggars and only selected the one exception in order to misrepresent the situation? Get real. Stop acting so ultra-scientific, we're dealing with social phenomenons here, which are inherently difficult to quantify. I completely accept Stossel's position, because it is completely compatible with my own personal experience at broad and narrow levels. Who the hell ever mentioned putting homeless people in jail? The reality is that the homeless people are there because it pays better than jobs they could find, and/or it's simply much easier than jobs they could find. That's the point. If you've got something specific from the series of videos to comment on or challenge, go for it. I think the point Stossel's making is quite simple and quite legitimate.

What I'm saying is that HRW, AI, and the hundreds and hundreds of other NGOs out there that claim to hold the banner of "human rights" have no right to undermine Israel's right to self-defense. It doesn't matter how much obfuscation people like you will use, citing "international law", or resolutions from the UN or its subsidiaries (as if those resolutions are inherently legitimate), attacks and threats against Israel will not be unanswered. You can't throw paperwork in our face and tell us that we must accept rocket attacks, shootings, IEDs, and suicide bombers because "international law" says so. There's nothing fanatic about that. And I'm not part of some "tribe". I'm Jewish. I belong to the Jewish nation. Your choice of the word "tribe" tells us a lot about your intentions.

If bloodyminded simply told the truth, which by now we can all see he is committed not to do, he'd have to relinquish the ability to state that Israel "intentionally" kills civilians in its military operations. American Woman, you have more patience than I with respect to dealing with bloodyminded.