Islamic militants praise 'heroic' slaughter of pregnant woman, 4 daughters

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Spiffor

If the Israelis as a whole would have stopped invading, the Palestinians would have had to have backed down many years ago. As long as they behave like conquerors, they will be hunted as such including the innocents among them.

If the Romans had never expelled the jews..........and so on.

I'm just saying as long as they behave like animals they will be treated as such and Isreal will be given enough slack to continue what it has been doing. You can talk all day about the wrongs Isreal has done and it won't do you any good as long as the pal act in this manner. If they were passive then the wrongs of Israel would get far more attention than they now do. Now im sure someone will come in here talking about the right to resist and all that stuff but I don't see killing these children as a blow against the occupation. May be just me though...


One thing I will say and I think Spiffor was right, any parent rasing their kid in that enviroment should expect that they live next to people who want to kill them. I think I would find other places to live, and let my pride be damned..

[Sprayber]

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
And as for Spiff's defense of this...

Where did I defend doing this? I defend it no more than I defended the Palestinians lynching Israeli soldiers at the beginning of the new intifada.

invading what exactly? don't say you believe that 67' borders tripe, again.

Maybe the 67 borders need some adaptation, but almost all settlements are new, and almost all adult inhabitants chose to come to live there. It's pure conquest, and the adult settlers are active, willing conquerors.

[Az]

Maybe the 67 borders need some adaptation, but almost all settlements are new, and almost all adult inhabitants chose to come to live there. It's pure conquest, and the adult settlers are active, willing conquerors.

besides the fricking point. You once again connected the violence in the region to the 67' war, which is bull. The violent nationalist arab palestinians were violent prior to 67' (and 48' for that matter). The peaceful population was peaceful after 67' as well.

Did you know that the was no on-the-ground occupation by Israeli troops until 93', but there was a local self-administration, with palestinian policemen, judges, etc. ? It was abolished with the establishment of the PA. yes, I was shocked when I discovered this, as well. I am not saying that Israel should cling on to the territories, however I saying that the nationalist, and islamist elements in the territories are not going for the territories' independence. They want it all.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
besides the fricking point. You once again connected the violence in the region to the 67' war, which is bull. The violent nationalist arab palestinians were violent prior to 67' (and 48' for that matter). The peaceful population was peaceful after 67' as well.

I don't connect violence to 67. I know very well violence begun prior to 48, and exploded in 48.
However, in my view settlements are probably the main reason why the average Rachid can support either his corrupt Arafat administration, or extremist people who mostly manage to bring more missiles in his neighbourhood.
That's because settlements are recent. That's because settlements are in the heart of Palestinian territories. That's because settlements forbid Palestinians to travel freely in their territory. That's because settlements use heaps of water. That's because settlements are chock-full of hated Israeli soldiers. That's because settlements are the very humiliation many Palestinians get to see every day. That's because settlements, by their very nature, is a danger to every Palestinian living in the area.

This is not an abstract idea of the "good borders". This is something of daily life. The Settlers are probably the Israelis that are the most devoted to the cause of war and hatred.

Did you know that the was no on-the-ground occupation by Israeli troops until 93', but there was a local self-administration, with palestinian policemen, judges, etc. ? It was abolished with the establishment of the PA. yes, I was shocked when I discovered this, as well. I am not saying that Israel should cling on to the territories, however I saying that the nationalist, and islamist elements in the territories are not going for the territories' independence. They want it all.

I know the nationalists want it all (at least all the extremist ones, the pragmatic may have accepted the existence of Israel, just like many Likuddites have accepted the principle of a Palestinian State). But the average Rachid is different; he may not want to die for this kind of abstaction if he can finally live in safety, and without a constant humiliation exerted upon him.

[East Street Trader]

The poor woman seems to have died in a cause which she and her husband believe in.

God knows if that is any consolation to him.

[Drake Tungsten]

Where did I defend doing this?

How didn't you defend this? The first thing you did in this thread was start spouting off justifcations for shooting these kids in the head...

[Az]

I don't connect violence to 67. I know very well violence begun prior to 48, and exploded in 48.
However, in my view settlements are probably the main reason why the average Rachid can support either his corrupt Arafat administration, or extremist people who mostly manage to bring more missiles in his neighbourhood.
That's because settlements are recent. That's because settlements are in the heart of Palestinian territories. That's because settlements forbid Palestinians to travel freely in their territory. That's because settlements use heaps of water. That's because settlements are chock-full of hated Israeli soldiers. That's because settlements are the very humiliation many Palestinians get to see every day. That's because settlements, by their very nature, is a danger to every Palestinian living in the area.

This is not an abstract idea of the "good borders". This is something of daily life. The Settlers are probably the Israelis that are the most devoted to the cause of war and hatred.

Again, presuming, of course, a mostly homegrown resistance, not injected from the outside. The settlements aren't recent ( unless you call 25-30 years recent). Most of their population are peaceful secular people who commute to Tel-Aviv to work. In Gaza the situation is different, yes, but Gaza isn't really debatable. We never wanted it, and in the long run we'll get rid of it, one way or the other, (despite the temporary Likud member idiocy) Most Likud voters support a withdrawal from Gaza.

I know the nationalists want it all (at least all the extremist ones, the pragmatic may have accepted the existence of Israel, just like many Likuddites have accepted the principle of a Palestinian State).

You see, I am not so sure of that! They want the right of return, and that's like wanting it all, really.

But the average Rachid is different; he may not want to die for this kind of abstaction if he can finally live in safety, and without a constant humiliation exerted upon him.

This is very true, sadly. But what the ordinary person thinks in Gaza weighs very little.

Oh, and is Rachid a general name for a muslim arab? please stop, I don't think it's polite. ( like using Ahmed, bleh)

[Felch]

Originally posted by dannubis
i didn't hear this outrage when a rocket hit a car in a crowded street and a four year old palestinian girl was blown away...

This may not gel with your worldview, but a rocket targeting a militant in a crowded street is different from a bullet targeting children and a pregnant woman on a deserted road.

Morality is more about the intentions of the actions, and the purpose they are intended to serve rather than a cold-blooded analysis of the end result. No one can totally know the end result of our actions before an event, but we can be aware of our intent and reasons, and we can also take measures to control the consequences. To intend to attack an avowed enemy is different from intending to attack an innocent little girl, or any civilian. Over the course of the conflict, Israelis have shown more moral consideration than the Palestinians have.

I don't buy the, "It's okay to murder settlers, because they're involved in the conquest." People should be free to live their lives as and where they choose, so long as they abide by the law. Nobody should ever say it's acceptable to kill a civilian just because they followed an invading army. By that perverse and twisted logic, Native Americans should be able to kill European and other Americans, and Aborigines kill Australians.

[Drake Tungsten]

Try "Celts should be able to kill all other Europeans". Might hit a little closer to home for all the Eurocom Israel-haters...

[Felch]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The Settlers are probably the Israelis that are the most devoted to the cause of war and hatred.

Or possibly Israelis who want a better future for their children. In the United States poorer people tend to join the Army because of the opportunities it offers. The government subsidies (I do believe settlers get some subsidies, but may be mistaken) settlers recieve may make it worthwhile for some people to sacrifice physical security for economic security.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Try "Celts should be able to kill all other Europeans". Might hit a little closer to home for all the Eurocom Israel-haters...

A Frenchman is probably Gallic. Although I think Spiff maybe more Eastern European.

[Az]

Most of the settlers, esp. in the west bank, are peaceful people. portraying them as some sort of cannon fodder, going there to die, is sick.

[Drake Tungsten]

portraying them as some sort of cannon fodder, going there to die, is sick.

Well, duh...

[Az]

replying to

The Settlers are probably the Israelis that are the most devoted to the cause of war and hatred.