Jonsa
-
Posts
249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Jonsa
-
-
billions of dollars? do tell. we're talking actual money received and not how much has been 'pledged'.
From 2007 about $2 billion a year in foreign aid to the PA. Last year $1.2 and this year less than a $1 billion with a view to eliminating aid by 2013.
Budget for 2011 in the PA, 3.7 Billion. UNWRA budget $568 million. Hamas 2010 budget was $540 million of which $60 million was from internal revenues and the balance from "foreign donors.
Interesting that Gazans certainly have less government than the wb.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C02%5C05%5Cstory_5-2-2011_pg4_4
the palestinians have had crappy government for many years, but that's not the main reason why palestinians are not able to prosper. the main reason is israel's occupation and their control of everything that goes in and out. when the borders, the air and the sea and imports and exports are heavily controlled by another government, then you need to be a little more honest about why the economy is doing crappy.
The WB experienced 9% growth last year. Seems a strategy of co-operation and compromise while still being able to criticize Israeli policy is working for the PA. Meanwhile, Hamas is totally dependent on Iran, Saudis, Syria et.al. to retain power and provide minimal services. Wonder which strategy is more effective and beneficial to the palestinian people, let alone to the goal of statehood.
-
Rather poor science.
we don't share 98 or 99 % of our DNA with chimps. And certainly no where close to 93% with monkeys.
" show that 24% of the chimpanzee genome does not align with the human genome. There are 3% further alignment gaps, 1.23% SNP differences, and 2.7% copy number variations totaling at least 30% differences between chimpanzee and Homo sapiens genomes"
-
The un general assembly is a feel good kaffeklatch of absolutely no authority. Its resolutions are totally politicized by voting blocs and always anti-Israeli when on that subject which seems to be with abnormal frequency.
It is nothing more than a venue for countries to behave hyocritically self righteously about other countries.
its a shame really, but when you can have a country like Bahamas have the same power (vote) as China its obvious why the GA has no teeth and can't be taken seriously.
-
Jonsa for you to try suggest the Mufti was not an active participant in the holocaust then turn around and try suggest I am manipulating history to suggest he is, and then trying to bait me with the name calling simply reflects on you.
Jonsa before you leap and ridicule-read and no the evidence of the Mufti's direct role in the holocaust does not come from the children's section, it comes from his own memoirs and the Nuremberg trials and page upon page of corroborated evidence. Attacking me personally won't change that fact, his role, or history.
The Mufti was personally responsible for the deaths of 20,000 Jews murdered in the Nazi Holocaust.
He personally arranged the killing of 12,600 Bosnian Jews by Muslims, whom he recruited to the Waffen-SS Nazi-Bosnian division.
He personally interceded to prevent 4,000 Jewish children, and 500 Jewish adults, from leaving Europe and having them sent to Auschwitz to be gassed.
He personally intervened to prevent 2,000 Jews from leaving Romania and 1000 from leaving Hungary and having them sent to Auschwitz to be gassed.
During the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Eichmann’s assistant, Dieter Wisliczeny, testified that Mufti was a central figure in the planning of the genocide of the Jews. Instead of making idiotic statements about history go read it and read what Wisliczeny testified at Nuremberg including this:
"He (the Mufti) was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz."
It is corroborated fact admitted in his own memoirs that The Grand Mufti repeatedly suggested to the Nazi authorities – including Hitler, von Ribbentrop and Himmler that Jews must be exterminated en masse.
Here enjoy his own words in his memoirs:
"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: The Jews are yours."
The Mufti was in fact the forerunner and number one proponent of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and and pushed both Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan and then would go on to pressure them to increase the level of killings.
He lived as a guest of Hitler in a house stolen from Jews and lived a lavish lifestyle spending stolen Jewish money to keep him fed and drunk.
It is a fact that in the summer of 1944 he sent letters lobbying the governments of Germany, Roumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary to speed the extermination of the Jews by sending them to Poland where the Nazi death chambers were located.
This is the best you have? Ridiculing me? Telling me I am narrowing history and get my information from children's books?
That's the best you have-ridicule and denial? Personal attacks? Lol.
Go on home and come back when you learn to read. Jew baiting will get you nowhere with me.
Well, It would appear as though I don't know as much as I thought I did. I shall do some further research in this area before opening my mouth about it again.
As for jew baiting...... a tad hypersensitive aren't you? a not uncommon condition but I only "bait" people based on my opinion of them or their comments as individuals with the exception of Islamists, white power pinheads and neo nazis.
I don't think you fall into any of those categories.
-
a few things:
#1 - the screaming hamas man in the first video didn't say "we used women and children as human shield". he said the people formed a shield around the fighters. palestinians volunteering to use themselves as shield has been documented before. as dumb as it may be, it's their choice to do this. actually, the goldstone report talks about this [page 145]:
475. The Mission is also aware of the public statement by Mr. Fathi Hammad, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, on 29 February 2009, which is adduced as evidence of Hamas use of human shields. Mr. Hammad reportedly stated that
… the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death seeking. For the Palestinian people, death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the mujahideen excel and the children excel. Accordingly, [Hamas] created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the mujahideen, against the Zionist bombing machine.335
476. Although the Mission finds this statement morally repugnant, it does not consider it to constitute evidence that Hamas forced Palestinian civilians to shield military objectives against attack. The Government of Israel has not identified any such cases.
Okay, it doesn't constitute evidence. However Goldstone himself uses the same translation. I am unaware that there was an alternative translation that differs from what it says in his report and obviously neither was he.
#2 - you weren't able to show me any reports that backs your claim that a 'a significant number of those civilian deaths [in cast lead] were a direct result of hamas'. all you've done is show random videos which are from pre-cast lead attack. you and some others here want to discredit the goldstone report while using random youtube videos to counter his report? this type of irresponsible debating tactic should be left to people like dancer and dogonporch. you're above that.Point taken.
i'd love to see something, anything to back up this claim.here is what the goldstone report [page 143] had to say about that:
466. In its report, the Government of Israel states that Hamas used two units and a groundfloor wing of al-Shifa hospital, the largest in the Gaza Strip, as a military base. 325 As its sources, it cites an interview with a Hamas activist captured by Israel and an Italian newspaper article, 326 which in turn bases this assertion on a single anonymous source. The Mission did not investigate the case of al-Shifa hospital and is not in a position to make any finding with regard to these allegations.
467. On the basis of the investigations it has conducted, the Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations made by the Israeli Government.
So, he didn't investigate the claim, that doesn't mean it wasn't true. However, one would reasonably conclude that if it was true there would be some evidence that Israel would be anxious to disclose. I shall concede that it is unsubstantiated.
Para 467 either is contradicting the last sentence of 466 or is refering to other claims.
that is true. here is part of the report that discusses these warnings. page 151+:A. Warnings
498. The Israeli Government has stated that it took the following steps to warn the civilian population of Gaza: 347
-
The Israeli armed forces made 20,000 calls on 27 December and 10,000 on 29 December 2008;
-
300,000 warning notes were dropped over the whole of the Gaza Strip on 28 December;
-
80,000 leaflets were dropped in Rafah on 29 December;
-
In the context of the beginning of ground operations on 3 January, 300,000 leaflets were dropped in the entire Gaza Strip, especially in the northern and eastern parts;
-
On 5 January, 300,000 leaflets were dropped in Gaza City, Khan Yunis and Rafah;
-
In total some 165,000 telephone calls were made throughout the military operations;348
-
In total some 2,500,000 leaflets were dropped. 349
7. Conclusions
535. While noting the statements of the significant efforts made by the Israeli armed forces to issue warnings, the sole question for the Mission to consider at this point is whether the different kinds of warnings issued can be considered as sufficiently effective in the circumstances to constitute compliance with article 57 (2) ©.
536. The Mission accepts that the warnings issued by the Israeli armed forces in some cases encouraged numbers of people to flee and get out of harms way in respect of the ground invasion, but this is not sufficient to consider them as generally effective.
537. The Mission considers that some of the leaflets with specific warnings, such as those that Israel indicates were issued in Rafah and al-Shujaeiyah, may be regarded as effective. However, the Mission does not consider that general messages telling people to leave wherever they were and go to city centres, in the particular circumstances of this military campaign, meet the
threshold of effectiveness.
538. The Mission regards some specific telephone calls to have provided effective warnings but treats with caution the figure of 165,000 calls made. Without sufficient information to know how many of these were specific, it cannot say to what extent such efforts might be regarded as effective.
539. The Mission does not consider the technique of firing missiles into or on top of buildings as capable of being described as a warning, much less an effective warning. It is a dangerous practice and in essence constitutes a form of attack rather than a warning.
540. The Mission is also mindful of several incidents it has investigated where civilians were killed or otherwise harmed and met with humiliation and degrading treatment by Israeli soldiers, while fleeing from locations about which some form of warning was issued. The effectiveness of the warnings has to be assessed in the light of the overall circumstances that prevailed and the subjective view of conditions that the civilians concerned would take in deciding upon their response to the warning.
I'm not sure what a "threshold of effectiveness" is. He is basically criticizing Israel for making an attempt to at least minimize civilian casualites in a time of war. His conclusion seems to raise the bar for Israel beyond any other country in any other war.
He did at least retract his assertion that Israel deliberately targetted civilians.
As an aside, are you not somewhat leery of his methodology? His ability to really only investigate one side of this conflict. Do you think that it is possible that reliance on palestinian input might skew the results. I think basic human nature would motivate some to embellish or lie if it put the enemy that just blew up your house in the worst possible light, n'est-ce pas?
I don't doubt that there violations by the IDF, but I also would allow for a differing interpretation of events if you were either the shooter or the target.
-
The Israeli armed forces made 20,000 calls on 27 December and 10,000 on 29 December 2008;
-
A Nazi apologist. Cool. You're rare these days.
PS Obergruppenführer, Germany lost WW2.
Apparently my first response to you suggesting you indulge in self gratification and then my second response to please demonstrate affection for my buttocks is a blatant insult according Hardner and my posts disappeared.
I consider your post to be a deliberate personal insult.
-
A Nazi apologist. Cool. You're rare these days.
PS Obergruppenführer, Germany lost WW2.
How you could arrive at such a conclusion given what I posted is beyond me. I suppose you think you are clever.
Apparently I am not allowed by forum rules to respond as this deliberate BLATANT INSULT deserves.
So I'll just sweetly say, please kiss my ass.
-
i'm hoping that's sarcasm but it's most likely not. when you shoot a rocket into a building and 5 of the 8 killed are civilian, then you are killing civilians indiscriminately. [\quote]
No, you are not indiscriminately killing civilians, you are targeting combatants that are illegally attempt to shield themselves with civilians. It is not a random act nor one lacking in judgement.
I was being sarcastic. I jumbled indiscriminant with deliberate - a claim some make.
according to who? is there an independent report done that shows 'a significant number of those civilian deaths [in cast lead] were a direct result of hamas' strategy of human shields'? goldstone came to the conclusion that hamas did not use civilians as human shield. something that he has not retracted. he also has not retracted that on several occasions, the IDF used civilians as human shield (link- page 19+) during cast lead.I am aware goldstone did not conclude that hamas used civilians as human shields. He concluded that there was no evidence available to him. considering his methodology one would have been shocked as shit if he did come up with such evidence.
Hamas MP Fathi Hammad: We Used Women and Children as Human
http://blog.camera.org/archives/HumanShields.jpg
i'm not defending hamas' tactics. they have lost credibility by indiscriminately firing rockets at civilians in israel. i don't think anyone here disputes that they are guilty of violating international law. that still doesn't mean that we shouldn't have to get the facts straight. i prefer to see facts discussed instead of misinformation that has been widely accepted as fact. like, for example, it's actually the idf who has repeatedly used civilians as human shield.I agree with you that it shouldnt be misrepresented. Like Hamas uses civilians as human shields. You are aware that during Cast Lead, Hamas headquartered in the basement of a hospital aren't you?
the jenin incident and the attack on gaza were different in that the size of areas were different, the option of 'getting out of dodge' were different and the military tactics were different.True, but even in Cast Lead the IDF notified residents.
i do recommend that you and anyone else to check all the reports that are out there. the goldstone report is 575 pages of findings which highlights the approach to the operation on different sides. there are also reports by HRW, AI, b'tselem and other organizations.I have read portions of the goldstone report. I am disturbed by his methodology and the inability to investigate many of claims he included in his conclusions. that being said, I am positive that many of the incidents described actually occured, its the interpretative conclusions I have some reservations about.
-
A Nazi apologist. Cool. You're rare these days.
PS Obergruppenführer, Germany lost WW2.
Fuck you.
-
Yeah...it's called being allied to the Nazi cause.
Russia and America were allies in WW2. Did that make America communist?
-
holy god. is bob trying to sell us that hamas is different than the idf when they come to killing civilians? i guess bigger and badder weapons equals more civilian deaths? like the 1000+ palestinian civilians the idf killed during the military action that killed less than a handful of israeli civilians?
i asked a simple question bob. i don't agree with any civilian deaths. not hamas' approach and of course, not idf's approach.
you can try to dismiss the comparison all you want. the comparison still stands. the idf indiscriminatory kills civilians far more than any group involved in this conflict.
the IDF does not indiscriminantly kill civilians. If it did, how do you explain that "only" 1400 civilians were killed in Cast Lead?
And a significant number of those civilian deaths were a direct result of Hamas' strategy of human shields.
Hamas deliberately and indiscriminantly targets Israeli civilians as proven by their constant firing of unguided rockets and mortars into civilian areas.
The IDF, otoh, takes great pains to minimize civilian casualities. Hell they even spent two days warning the citizens of Jenin to get out of dodge before they entered. Some 11,000 took the hint before hostilities started.
-
How about before you share any more gems from history you quite while you are ahead.
You might also want to read back the above. Trying to stand and sit at the same time is like trying to speak with your head up yer butt. Not sure if its possible. Careful.
The Mufti was abundantly clear he detested Jews and wanted Jews wiped off the face of the earth not just out of Palestine. He was 100% in support of the final solution and pushed for its implementation.
Let me restate that-he was a principle player in demanding and pressuring that the mass genocide of Jews be implemented.
So for you to suggest he was simply a mutual ally fighting Britain is a total and utter crock and an insult to anyone who actually takes the time to read history.
You want to come on thos firm and engage in the stale Israel is poo poo ka ka comments knock yourself out-try revise history and I will be the first to ridicule and challenge your sordid efforts.
The Mufti was NOT a Nazi.
Yes, he certainly wanted to exterminate the jews.
Now, if you think for one second he had any influence on the final solution you are just dumb. the Mufti represented the "sand people", higher than jews in their warped racist scale, but far far below the german ideal. The nazis and the mufti were allies of convenience.
But first and foremost as a Muslim, he wanted to get rid of the British occupiers of muslim land. the ummah is an important islamic concept. they are still whining about losing andalusia 600 years ago. For you not to understand this concept indicates an ignorance of your enemy.
I won't bother ridiculing your simplistic and narrow interpretation of history and the motivation of its players. I don't know how much time you have spent reading history, but you might want to move out of the childrens section some time.
-
"Complete surrender"? What are you talking about? They need to get into negotiations and stop the violence. The problem is, they cling to demands that cannot be delivered, make excuses not to negotiate, and continue terrorism. Therefore, the status quo resumes. And you obviously think that's a good idea. It's easy for people like you, completely disconnected from the circumstances (and largely ignorant about relevant history and context), to cheer the Arabs on in forums like this. It's also pathetic.
As far as my interest in an accord, of course I want a resolution to this conflict. Unlike you, I actually care about this situation. What I am not interested in, however, is an accord that is unacceptable. People like yourself spin this situation into the following story - "Israel won't accept Arab demands, therefore Israel doesn't want peace." Or, as you just recently put it, "Renouncing violence and sitting down to have negotiations (the Palestinian Authority refuses to negotiate unless "settlements are frozen") is the same as 'surrender', therefore Palestinians should continue doing what they are doing."
Nice perspective you have there!
So if you were in charge what kind a settlement would you negotiate?
would you withdraw from the minor settlements and the jordan valley?
would you pay compensation in lieu of right of return to Israel proper?
would you "share" jerusalem?
would you allow free passage between WB to Gaza?
would you allow sovereign rights to the nation of Palestine?
In your world, what would a peaceful, meaningful, and sustainable agreement look like?
-
So a nut burns a Koran and people thousands of miles away die.
Seems President Karzai uses for his own political gain and incites the radicals with calls to arrest the nutjob in America.
Radical imans incite their congragations and lookie there. A few hundred whack jobs decide to protest.
The Taliban view this as an outstanding opportunity. Hiding within the demonstrations they launch a heinous terrorist attack on a UN compound.
The only "religious" aspect of this is that the "faith" of some really gullible and ignorant afghanis is exploited by politicians and terrorists.
The taliban achieve their goals. Terrorize the UN. Demonstrate to the world the "power of Islam" and create even more Islamophobia in the west, and fan the flames of hatred in the Islamic world towards the kafrs.
the preacher is just as ignorant as the afghani muslims that protested.
The UN moron who blames the preacher is just as ignorant as the preacher and the afghani muslims.
The media is just as ignorant as the preacher, the afghani muslims and the UN moron thinking that these murders had anything to do with burning a book.
Karzai isn't ignorant, he just a sleazy corrput politician who got what he wanted - "look at me, I'm no puppet of the great satan" and a US general has to apologize to the afghani people for a nutjob american's actions condoned by no one.
The taliban are ignorant scumbags, but they got what they wanted and judging from the posts on this thread, it seems Islamophobia gets a little more entrenched.
-
Unlike Tibet "gaza" was never a country, anymore than Ozarkia is.
and exactly how is that relevant?
-
Pretty much, eh? No exceptions. Which is why when Borman's office put out a rumor that Heydrich was 1/8th Jewish, or something like that, it caused such a stir.
That chart (plus its bureaucracy) and executive control of the rail system and you have a party in the making. The SS went so far as to rent tourist class rail carriages to send most of the German Jews to the East. Avoided panic.
So, no matter what Mr Jonsa would have thought at the time re: being Jewish, those with the guns, trains and camps will have different ideas on the concept. Heck, I showed you where simply being related by marriage to Jews got you shipped to the East.
Like I said before. I don't give a shit about all that nazi garbage.
It provides an excellent history lesson, but is relevant in today's world only as a warning of the evil that man can achieve - "Never Again".
I am well aware that in those days I would have been a candidate for transportation.
-
Again, religion is only one component of Jewish identity. What do you consider an atheist child of two Jewish parents? Answer: an atheist Jew. There is more to Jewish identity than religion.
Really? what would you say are the other components of being Jewish?
-
No, I'm not stupid, which is why I'm not so ignorant as to claim to know what others feel/don't feel. Your "they don't give a shit because they did it" line of thought is ludicrous. People sometimes do things they would rather not do. I repeat. Your insistence that "they don't give a shit" based on "because they did it" speaks more of you than of them, and means nothing in reality.
In the end, the fact that they knew they were going to kill innocent children didn't deter them in the slightest. So I'll revise my statement. They may or may not have given a shit, but they killed those kids.
No. The "intent" was to kill the target. If no one else was in the building, the building would be bombed, the target would be killed, and that would be good. If the "intent" was to kill civilians too, only killing the target would mean failure because they intended to kill civilians, too.The intent was to kill everyone in the building, to ensure that they killed the target. A 1 ton bomb is indiscriminant.
There was no intent to kill civilians in any instance. When one "intends" to do something, one does not have regret when it happens. One is pleased that their "intent" was accomplished. Show me one instance of Israel being pleased that civilians were killed in an attack. Show me one instance of Israel being disappointed that civilians/more civilians weren't killed.The title of this thread is flat out misleading. Israel did not target civilians, intend to kill civilians, in response to terrorism, even though terrorism does target civilians.
One doesn't have regrets if they intended an action? NONSENSE. Talk to soldiers returning from combat. They intended to kill the enemy and some have regrets and nightmares for the rest of their lives.
I have never once said that Israel deliberately targets civilians.
I claim that incidents like the one we are discussing demonstrates that Israel is totally prepared to kill any number of civilians to kill their designated target. Like just about every other nation in a war.
-
You're attributing statements and perspectives to me I've never made.
For starters, I never said there wasn't an occupation, only that Gaza isn't occupied (and it isn't). Moreover, the occupation of Judea and Samaria is very "soft", with plenty of autonomy given the the Palestinians.
Well, you can continue to claim that Gaza isn't occupied. However, according to the hague and Geneva conventions and the case law surrounding them, Gaza remains occupied. You know Israel is a signatory of those conventions and that teh Israeli Supreme court has stated that the precepts of international law are intrinsic in the laws of Israel. Hmmmm.
A "soft" occupation. Like the palestinians should consider themselves lucky Israel is such a magnanimous occupier.
I'm mean really why on earth would these ungrateful wretches want liberty and freedom and the right to self determination. Granted they aren't going about trying to achieve those human rights with the best strategy, but to arrogantly excuse occupation by calling it "soft" is churlish.
The issue of Arab occupation in Israel was to illustrate the politicized nature of the term "occupation" with respect to the Israel/Arab conflict. They certainly do occupy a lot of land, largely existing in the economic and social black market, and almost exclusively give their political support to anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist Arab political parties. Don't expect me to love this group of people who are largely a fifth column and hostile to fundamental Israeli/Jewish national interests.Almost exclusively give their vote to who? Surely you aren't complaining that arab citizens vote for parties that represent their interests? Are you trying to tell me that Hadash is anti-semitic and anti-zionist - they're socialists and include both jews and arabs? Or is the fact that the United Arab List is so vocal about equal rights for arab Israeli citizens making them both anti-semitic and anti-zoinist? Or perhaps Ta'al who was so vehemently against Operation Cast lead and who had to get the Supreme Court to overturn the knesset's ban? Or perhaps Balad, who fights hard for equality for arab citizens?
In 2009 54% of the arab population voted or roughly 525,000 ballots. The arab parties garnered roughly 310,000 votes, Who did the other 215,000 arabs exclusively vote for?
I never said "all Arabs want to kill Jews". What I do recognize, however, after the hundreds and hundreds of hours I've spent learning about Arab/Muslim perspectives of Israel, is the massive amount of hostility among them. Metaphorically speaking, the torch of anti-Semitism burns brightest among the Arabs and Muslims in today's world. Of this there can be no debate.There's a massive amount of hostility in virtually every minority group who do not have equal rights, equal opportunity or equal access to services, (or at least the perception of equal rights) in their own country. Here its the first nations. Take your pick of blacks or hispanics in american ghettos. Wouldn't want to be a turk in Germany.
I acknowledge that the most vocal anti-semitism arises from the muslim world.
With respect to Arab children, I didn't say they were automatically guilty. What I did say was that they are not automatically innocent as most media outlets would lead you to believe. What is never reported is how children are utilized in the terrorist infrastructure.anyone that has followed the conflict is well aware of the role that children play in support the gangs of terrorist thugs that dominate palestinian nieghbourhoods.
Why are children not tried in adult court? A child is easily influenced. given the culture, they might even look up to the thugs who have a certain stature in the community, they cannot determine the consequences of their actions and certainly are not equiped to actually make political determinations.
Infants and toddlers and pre-adolescents are innocent, period.
As far as beefs with the Israeli government, I certainly have my fair share. My beefs with the Israeli government, however, certainly do not include describing it as "right-wing" or "aggressive" or "hardline". Current and previous Israeli government always operate with great hesitancy out of fear of political attacks from the USA, EU, UN, et al.Well, it would appear as though your reluctance to describe the Israeli government as "right wing" is not shared by the ruling party of this coalition who proudly pronounce themselves to be right wing. I guess you missed that whole Likud Kadima split as Sharon wanted to take a more centerist position.
With respect to "land for peace"/removal of settlements for peace, it is largely a joke. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it as long as I keep hearing this bullshit about settlements being a core issue - the Arabs and Muslims were murdering us and waging war against us many decades before the Six-Day War. Were they opposing settlements in 1967, 1954, or 1948? What about the pogroms in the Palestinian Mandate and Arab/Muslim countries decades leading up to 1948? Were they opposing the occupation then? When you can explain that to me, then I'll explain "land-for-peace" with you.You can dismiss the fact that the vast majority of Israelis AND Palestinians consider the settlements to be a core issue - you are entitled to your opinion.
I have not attempted to justify arab actions against the zionist jews prior to 48 nor the subsequent wars and political maneouverings.
The pogroms of the mandate were a direct result of zionist influx into palestine and their loudly stated intentions of creating the nation of Israel. Kinda pisses off the native population, wot?
Those arab/muslim countries' pogroms occurred after 48 and were a direct result of the "occupation" of palestine by Israel. (tht is the establishment of Israel itself).
I acknowledge that all Islamist groups wish to see the destruction of Israel or as they so euphemistically state "the liberation of all of historic palestine".
However, it is my opinion that when the day comes that a palestinian nation is established in peaceful co-existence with Israel, the belligerence of the other arab/muslim countries will be vastly reduced. Of course, If nutbar regimes like Iran still exist, it won't make any difference to them.
-
I missed the part with the children's names and ages. Anyways, the fact remains is that we're often placed in the position where it's us or them. Don't you get that? The people the IDF goes after murder Israelis and Jews around the world, and they certainly target children. We have to make that choice - either we kill these terrorists who are completely embedded within the civilian population and do our best to reduce harm to civilians, or we allow them to continue to operate with impunity and murdering us. That's what things boil down to. If I am ever in the situation where I have to choose between us and them, I will never flinch and make that decision one hundred times over. Killing terrorists like Yassin *saves lives*. Either way, the IDF monitors those is targets for assassination and does its best to find the best and safest opportunities to carry out its operations. It's a good thing a person like you isn't responsible for making these kinds of decisions.
Nobody argues about being placed in an us or them position. this wasn't one of those instances. don't you get that?
Nobody is suggesting that Israel allows terrorists to operate with impunity. don't you get that?
And it says a lot about you that you'd make the decision a hundred times over to deliberately bomb innocent children to kill one bad guy, especially when there are so many other proven ways of efficiently eliminating said bad guy. (I particularly liked the exploding cell phone myself).
-
How would you know what's going on in their minds? I know I sure as hell wouldn't want the responsibility of the well being of my nation; to feel the responsibility of the safety and security of all the citizens. I'm sure they agonized over many things. That you would claim to know what's going on inside their heads is ridiculous and it says a lot more about you than it'll ever say about them.
They are not stupid and neither are you.
Tell me, what do you think the outcome of dropping a 1 ton bomb on a 4 story concrete structure that houses three or four families will be?
Now, consider dropping the bomb at 2 in the morning?
Now tell me what immediate conclusions you come to wrt the results?
the didn't give a shit because they did it. They knew they were going to kill families, but their desire to kill a bad guy was greater than any moral repugnance to kill babies.
And again. No. The "intent," the goal, the aim, was NOT to kill civilians. The intent, the aim, the goal, was to kill the target(s). If it was the intent, the goal, the aim to kill civilians along with the target(s) and only the target(s) were killed, then one would have to say they didn't achieve their goal, their aim, their intent; and that's just not true. Even you can't argue that.Tell me how you can kill only the target with a 1 ton bomb when the target is sleeping in an apartment building in the middle of the night.
The intent was to kill everyone in the apartment building to ensure that the target was killed.
I agree that in an active fire fight lobbing a grenade into a house where the shooters are that kills some innocent civilians huddled in the house, there was no intent to kill the civilians. that isn't the case with this attack.
-
Also Jonsa, it's pretty infantile of you to state that I think "all Arabs should leave" or that I am a Baruch Goldstein fanboy or Kahanist. I never said such things or held such sentiments, and you're just trying to smear me in the same way you accuse me (incorrectly) of labelling people anti-Semitic unfairly.
Ahhhhh, so when applied to you its infintile, but when you do it, its okay? Lesson 1.
It wasn't unfair. You definitely implied I was anti-semitic twice. that crack about how we both know why I said "european jews".
-
israel responds to terrorism by killing civilians
Terrorists do not wear uniforms. They ARE civilians.
read the Geneva conventions wrt to resistance fighters in occupied territory.
-
How do you know they intended to kill everyone in the building? Remember, this is a small apartment we're talking about. The IDF and Israeli security forces do everything reasonably possible to limit civilian harm. If it was an intelligence failure that is one thing (such as thinking the families who lived in the building were out for one reason or another), but to suggest that the IDF knowingly killed everyone in the building is reaching far beyond what you know, and runs contrary to what we know about the operations and code of conduct of the IDF and Israeli intelligence.
\
Don't play stupid.
No they didn't intend to kill everyone in the four or five unit apartment building by dropping a 1 ton bomb on it in the early morning hours.
Who in their right mind could possibly think that normal people and small children would be in their beds at that time?
Who could have known what a 1 ton bomb would have done to a 4 story concrete building?
You claim you know all about these attacks, but from your responses it appears as though you either don't know anything about them, or you are being disingenuous hoping to some how defend the indefensible.
israel responds to terrorism by killing civilians
in The Rest of the World
Posted
Nobody can justify killing innocents.
Israel's responses often kill civilians not because the deliberately target them, but because they are in the way. That or their intelligence was faulty.
And, if there weren't terrorist attacks, there wouldnt be israeli response, would there?