Lefties: Want to get rid of my Reagan avatar?

[Az]

They really aren't a real threat now. Traffic accidents kill more people than terrorism does in Israel.

And pollution! don't forget pollution!

[johncmcleod]

Palestinians kill because they want their own state, Israelis kill because Palestinians are throwing rocks at them. A death is a death. Both sides have resorted to unnecessary violence.

[Az]

alestinians kill because they want their own state, Israelis kill because Palestinians are throwing rocks at them. A death is a death. Both sides have resorted to unnecessary violence.

No. Israelis kill because palestinians are tasty.

Same connection to reality.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Azazel

alestinians kill because they want their own state, Israelis kill because Palestinians are throwing rocks at them. A death is a death. Both sides have resorted to unnecessary violence.

No. Israelis kill because palestinians are tasty.

Same connection to reality.

Are they kosher?

[Jaguar]

I have to say that I find the avatar amusing. He's like some sort of hip-hop Arafat with those sunglasses.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


The avatar is having the effect I planned. Notice, we didn't have all of this before the avatar was changed.

So glad you were able to get your climax, Imran.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If it's OK to blow up bus loads of school children by homicide bombers

What kind of bomber isn't a homocide bomber? Can we call IDF pilots homocide bombers since they bomb civilians?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think I'd like to see the reaction around here if the Israelis went after civilian targets without remorse

I don't ever call seeing remorse on the part of Israelis for the mass murder of Palestinians. Since the Palestinian diaspora began, Isreal has killed ten times the number of Palestinian civilians as Palestinian terrorists have killed Israeli civilians.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I don't ever call seeing remorse on the part of Israelis for the mass murder of Palestinians. Since the Palestinian diaspora began, Isreal has killed ten times the number of Palestinian civilians as Palestinian terrorists have killed Israeli civilians.

I call bull****.

[Fake Boris]

double penetration

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I call bull****.

That's too bad for you, cuz he's right.

Look at any thread where people discussed selective assassinations by the IDF - many rightists defend the idea that civilians shouldn't go to the same mosquee as "terrorists" if they don't want to risk being killed.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by GePap


OMG! An actual arguement posted by DD! I thought those days were past!

States have essentially gotten together and writen the rules about what is acceptable violence and what is not- of course, they wrote it in a way to legitimize where they are strong, and criminilize forms of violence that skirt their strenghts. As technology has improved, the rules get rewriten- the massive bombardment of a city without regards to civilian casualties has gone the way of burning down the city, killing all the males and enslaving everyone else, which once was totally permitted behavior.

Any arguement about Terrorism needs to keep in mind that fact- that is not a judgement, but simply a recitation of reality.

what we call terrorism is political violence by the weak- if Hamas had Tanks, Apaches, F-16 and divisions, they could afford to fight like the Israelis- they could even afford to play by the rules. Of course, they lack all of those things, and having chosen violence as their method for political change, well, that does not leave them much but to act in ways that have been designed as criminal.

As for their aims, and the notion that all "terrorist" groups are totalitarian in nature- a judgement of the avenues open does not equal a judgement of their aim. Obviously nationalist organizations want very different aims from religiously motivated ones.

The question is, can people trully achieve anything in a non-violent manner, or in a violent manner that seeks to play by the state writen rules?

[chequita guevara]

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-%20Obstacle%20to%20Peace/Palestinian%20terror%20since%202000/Victims%20of%20Palestinian%20Violence%20and%20Terrorism%20sinc

1,032 people have been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September 2000.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2000/1/Terror+deaths+in+Israel-+1920-1999.htm

From 1920 through 1999, a total of 2,580 residents of Mandatory Palestine and, since 1948, the State of Israel fell victims to hostile enemy action; in most cases, terrorist attacks.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+before+2000/Fatal+Terrorist+Attacks+in+Israel+Since+the+DOP+-S.htm

No Israelis were killed by terrorism in the 9 months from Dec 1999 to Sep 2000.

That's a grand total of 3612 Israeli civilians killed by terrorism.

http://www.palestinercs.org/intifadasummary.htm

Total number of Palestinian deaths & injuries in West Bank & Gaza since Sept 29th, 2000 is 3,222 deaths, 27,484 injuries.

This link has higher numbers but there are some interesting breakdowns of those deaths.

http://www.gcmhp.net/File_files/ReportOct182k4.html

That's all I can find right now. Notice, however, that Israel has killed in four years what it took the Palestinians 84 four years to do to the Israelis.

[Dis]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Imran: My respect for you has increased exponentially.

I don't think that is a very good pic. It makes him look crazy.

he is crazy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I call bull****. Though thier rehetoric is almost always couched with such niceties as a desire for freedom and a battle for human rights, there is a built in contradiction between the professed goal and the method chosen to implement them. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the methods reveal a totalitarian strain that runs through all terrorist groups today.

No, what you do is post bull****.

There is no contradiction here at all, at least not in the way that logicians understand the term. Apparently you have something else in mind - God knows what.

Virtually every war that is fought for human rights ends up violating them by killing civilians, either accidentally, intentionally, or as collateral damage. That implies no contradiction on the part of the actors whose aim is to minimize future human rights violations. Sometimes allowing for a lesser number of rights violations is the best way to achieve this goal. There's no contradiction because wars for human rights are fought in accordance with an implicit maximizing principle.

And don't bother with "the end doesn't justify the means" because, as everyone who knows anything knows, only an end justifies a means.

As for the totalitarian stuff. Prove it, instead of making such silly claims.

It's lucky for you that you rarely post an argument, since you tend to get smacked down so badly.