supporting gandhi vs supporting bush

[dub]

He actively worked to hinder the British war effort. See Sherlock and ask if he has an extra clue to lend you.

Lets refresh

1) Gandhi Pacifism was instrumental in the process towards Indian and Pakistani independance.

3) Wide spread Rioting and violence left India ungovernable despite Gandhi pacifism.

4) Gandhi was just one of the factors.

5) Armed forces mutinies were a leading factor (overlooking that they weren't on strike for independence).

6) Gandhi opposed the mutinies.

7) Over 1/2 million killed during partition.

8) Gandhi influence over the bloodshed was pathetic.

9) Gandhi was a dangerous niave idiot.

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

[M.Dancer]

1) one race is superior to another---Gandhi agrees

2) taking away a person's property is okay as long as they're not jewish ---Gandhi sort of agrees...provided the jew commits suicide.

3) doesn't matter who criticizes israel, as long as they do, they're anti-semites and we will not accept their criticism...Except the clowns here with a couple exceptions are anto semites.

4) killing civilians in the name of killing terrorists is how you justify the killing---Dub gets it arse end backwards again. Killing terrorists is how you justify killing civilans.

5) all actions are justified in the name of self-defense....Like an arab bombing a falafel stand or randomly launching rockets at daycares or smashing the brains in of baby...you know, the arab way.

[dub]

1) one race is superior to another---Gandhi agrees

2) taking away a person's property is okay as long as they're not jewish ---Gandhi sort of agrees...provided the jew commits suicide.

3) doesn't matter who criticizes israel, as long as they do, they're anti-semites and we will not accept their criticism...Except the clowns here with a couple exceptions are anto semites.

4) killing civilians in the name of killing terrorists is how you justify the killing---Dub gets it arse end backwards again. Killing terrorists is how you justify killing civilans.

5) all actions are justified in the name of self-defense....Like an arab bombing a falafel stand or randomly launching rockets at daycares or smashing the brains in of baby...you know, the arab way.

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.

[M.Dancer]

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.

Your heroes, go ahead and defend their actions, like killing babies with their bare hands.

Next, eyewitnesses said he smashed the head of 4 year-old Einat on beach rocks and crushed her skull with the butt of his rifle,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar

This arab is considered a hero by his fellow arabs. His actions are meritorius in their eyes. Go ahead, defend him and the arab way.

[dub]

Your heroes, go ahead and defend their actions, like killing babies with their bare hands.

you're still pathetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar

This arab is considered a hero by his fellow arabs. His actions are meritorius in their eyes. Go ahead, defend him and the arab way.

so if samir kuntar represents arabs then baruch goldstein represents jews?

you're still a pathetic, racist bottom feeder.

[M.Dancer]

so if samir kuntar represents arabs then baruch goldstein represents jews?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_P...ssacre#Massacre

Goldstein's actions were immediately condemned by the Israeli government, the mainstream Israeli parties and the Israeli populace in general.[12] Spokespeople for all the organized denominations of Judaism denounced his act as immoral and as terrorism. The Kach movement, to which he belonged, was outlawed as a terrorist organization. The cabinet agreed to take away the weapons of some right-wing extremists and put them in administrative detention.

Contrasted against...

Suleiman, Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and members of major political factions - including Hizbullah's rivals - led a long line of politicians, as well as Muslim and Christian clerics, in greeting them on the airport's tarmac in a show of unity and opposition to Israel.

The five were flown by two army helicopters from the southern Lebanese border town of Naqoura, where they were cheered by hundreds of spectators and received a red-carpet welcome and a Hizbullah honor guard

One, a Jew, commits an act of terror, and is condemned by the government and the religious body. The other, an arab, committs an act of barbarism and is welcomed a hero.

One is the Israeli way and the other, the arab way. Did you cheer when the baby killer was released?

[dub]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_P...ssacre#Massacre

Contrasted against...

One, a Jew, commits an act of terror, and is condemned by the government and the religious body. The other, an arab, committs an act of barbarism and is welcomed a hero.

One is the Israeli way and the other, the arab way. Did you cheer when the baby killer was released?

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?

[M.Dancer]

what about when goldstein killed the arabs? did you stand up looking for a high five?

Not as much as you. I'm sure you were thrilled to see a jew adopt arab tactics. The thing is, for evrey mentally unstrable Goldstein, there's 10,000 entirely sane Kuntars embracing death and willing to murder.

Part of their culture.

[M.Dancer]

Death seeking culture.

Always ready to blow up a snack bar....

[M.Dancer]

I wonder if the indian fakir would have told the arabs of gaza and the west Jordan to commit suicide

.......in a falafel shop

.......with bombs strapped to their chests?

Edited August 6, 2009 by M.Dancer

[dub]

I wonder if the indian fakir would have told the arabs of gaza and the west Jordan to commit suicide

.......in a falafel shop

.......with bombs strapped to their chests?

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!

Edited August 6, 2009 by dub

[M.Dancer]

the problem with your constant babbling about suicide attacks is that i have not seen anyone here excusing or justifying them.

Really? Then I suppose the support I have read regarding the legitimacy of Hamas is nothing?

- a suicide attack or a rocket attack might kill civilians

- an artillery shell hitting a building kills civilians (usually a lot more)

The goal of a suicide attack is to kill civilians. The goal of an artillery strike is to kill combatants. A subtle difference which seems to escape you.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

You would have to be a simpleton to think that was my point. I take it you think that was my point.

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

[Malaclypse the Younger]

I wonder if the indian fakir would have told the arabs of gaza and the west Jordan to commit suicide

.......in a falafel shop

.......with bombs strapped to their chests?

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

[Malaclypse the Younger]

The goal of a suicide attack is to kill civilians. The goal of an artillery strike is to kill combatants. A subtle difference which seems to escape you.

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"?

[M.Dancer]

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"?

Well, for one the goal is achieved and the immediate threat of the terrorist is neutralized. Now I suppose you mean a sabot round but what ever....

The possibility of civilians deaths, no matter how tragic should not preclude the lawful (according to international law and the laws of war) attacks against legitimate military targets otherwise all the enemy would have to do is position all their assets amongst civilians, which is course the normal arab tactic.

[dub]

Well, for one the goal is achieved and the immediate threat of the terrorist is neutralized. Now I suppose you mean a sabot round but what ever....

The possibility of civilians deaths, no matter how tragic should not preclude the lawful (according to international law and the laws of war) attacks against legitimate military targets otherwise all the enemy would have to do is position all their assets amongst civilians, which is course the normal arab tactic.

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.

[M.Dancer]

the amnesty report concluded that hamas did not use civilians as human shield.

Does it hurt?

you are either against civilians being killed or you're okay with it.

Hamas is okay with it, and apparently you are too....

[dub]

Does it hurt?

Hamas is okay with it, and apparently you are too....

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"?

Edited August 6, 2009 by dub

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Well, for one the goal is achieved and the immediate threat of the terrorist is neutralized.

The goal is achieved, and many civilians die in the process. What is the difference?

Now I suppose you mean a sabot round but what ever....

No, I mean flechette. Flechettes are tiny steel darts shot out of a tank.

The possibility of civilians deaths, no matter how tragic should not preclude the lawful (according to international law and the laws of war) attacks against legitimate military targets otherwise all the enemy would have to do is position all their assets amongst civilians, which is course the normal arab tactic.

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?

[M.Dancer]

The goal is achieved, and many civilians die in the process. What is the difference?

There the enemies civilians. You look after your own.

No, I mean flechette. Flechettes are tiny steel darts shot out of a tank.

I misread. I'm not aware of this tech for tanks. Never the less, its a war crime for combattants to be positioned in a civ iilan area ...but not a war crime to attack the position even if it is in a marketplace.

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?

Strawman. You don't know that the intent is to kill without discretion and the fact is professional armies don't. It makes the logistics officers angry cause it's a waste of ammunition.

[Bonam]

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.

All attacks have a chance of killing civilians. Especially when attacking military targets in civilian areas, as is very often the case when your enemy hides among and mingles with the civilian population. Nevertheless, a nation must defend itself, and must carry out strikes against military targets, even if there exists a chance of killing civilians in the process.

That appears to be your problem. You think in absolutes. "Killing civilians = bad". Sure, that's true, war is bad in general. But there is a clear difference between attacking military targets and killing civilians in the process, and purposefully targeting civilians. Therein lies one of the many differences between Israel and Hamas.

The greatest crime, by far, committed in the recent conflict, was Hamas's action of placing their military assets and personnel in civilian areas, thus exposing those civilians to harm. This may not meet AI's definition of "using a human shield", I don't really know or care, but that is semantics - what matters is that it is Hamas's actions that placed those civilians in danger.

Had they gone out into the desert and launched their rockets from there, Israel would have targeted their launch sites in the desert, killing only Hamas militants. Had they not launched rockets at all, Israel wouldn't have targeted anything.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Bonam

[Malaclypse the Younger]

There the enemies civilians. You look after your own.

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?

I misread.

That's quite the misread. "Flechette" and "sabot" look nothing alike.

I'm not aware of this tech for tanks.

It's been around since the first world war.

Never the less, its a war crime for combattants to be positioned in a civ iilan area ...but not a war crime to attack the position even if it is in a marketplace.

I'd like you to point out the specific parts of the Geneva Convention that says any of this.

Strawman. You don't know that the intent is to kill without discretion and the fact is professional armies don't. It makes the logistics officers angry cause it's a waste of ammunition.

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.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

That appears to be your problem. You think in absolutes. "Killing civilians = bad". Sure, that's true, war is bad in general. But there is a clear difference between attacking military targets and killing civilians in the process, and purposefully targeting civilians. Therein lies one of the many differences between Israel and Hamas.

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

[M.Dancer]

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?

The difference is one is legal and the other the figment of imagination.

That's quite the misread. "Flechette" and "sabot" look nothing alike.

That's not what I misread. Which is why I said sabot intially.

In any case, I have seareched and found that according to B'tselem that 9 civilians have been killed by them. Assuming that the targets are not civilians, that ain't bad.

I'd like you to point out the specific parts of the Geneva Convention that says any of this.

Oh how tedious....

Art. 28. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Happier?

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.

There have been numerous statements of regret from Israel. Never the less, it is not Israel who should apologise, they didn't put the civialns in danger.