French Bias attacks mount

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's why Israeli soldiers lure Palestinian children out to throw stones?

I have no idea where you are getting this from, but I haven't heard it anywhere, and it certainly doesn't make very much sense. The Israelis take a lot of heat whenever they shoot rioters, and it's simply inconceivable that they would try to make their jobs harder by luring out children who they know they aren't supposed to hit.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, just saying that you saying that some death camp victim is accusing the UN of anti-Semitism doesn't make it so without evidence. Where is her evidence?

Might have something to do with constant censure votes against Israel, yet none on PA Authority.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Felch: We are saying it is hypocritical for Americans to condemn Palestinian suicide bombings in light of our history.

Does your interpretation of our recent history take away from the fact that it is wrong to attempt to kill people for the twin crimes of being a Jew and shopping for food?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Ethics is what makes me give grudging respect to guerrillas as opposed to terrorists.

I was explaining, not condoning. I personally think that the deliberate targetting of civilians is an evil that should be tried and punished. However, it is only a crime that the loser pays, because of course, winners do not commit war crimes.

In a better world, Sharon, and Clinton, and Bush, and Hussein, and Milosevic, and Kissinger, and the heads of Hamas, would all be locked away forever.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Felch: We are saying it is hypocritical for Americans to condemn Palestinian suicide bombings in light of our history.

But would you say that an overall condemnation of anybody who used the slaughter of innocent civilians is reasonable?

By the way, I'm an American, I believe you and Che are, would you say that we are responsible for Dresden or the Trail of Tears? Or would it be more reasonable to say that the political and military leaders who ordered those atrocities are responsible?

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In a better world, Sharon, and Clinton, and Bush, and Hussein, and Milosevic, and Kissinger, and the heads of Hamas, would all be locked away forever.

Okay, that's all I was asking.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Might have something to do with constant censure votes against Israel, yet none on PA Authority.

Perhaps because one country is an occupier and the other is occupied. One country has all the power, the other has none. One country has consistently violated International law and its own committments to the UN. The other hasn't.

[Alexander's Horse]

Forgot to rate this thread....................there, that's better

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Perhaps because one country is an occupier and the other is occupied. One country has all the power, the other has none. One country has consistently violated International law and its own committments to the UN. The other hasn't.

I'll pretend you didn't say that, especially the last two lines.

Sure you don't want to rethink that, or must we drag up every one Fatty's follies, and we can start with the arms shipments....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Does your interpretation of our recent history take away from the fact that it is wrong to attempt to kill people for the twin crimes of being a Jew and shopping for food?

Ask those that are being oppressed if it is wrong. IIRC, one of the Israelis here once posted if they were a Palestinian they'd probably sponser terrorism as well. When you are treated like dirt, it stops being wrong.

In a better world, Sharon, and Clinton, and Bush, and Hussein, and Milosevic, and Kissinger, and the heads of Hamas, would all be locked away forever.

Which Bush?

But would you say that an overall condemnation of anybody who used the slaughter of innocent civilians is reasonable?

Of course... and everyone that has done so is not right. But we have to see why those people think that it is right.

By the way, I'm an American, I believe you and Che are, would you say that we are responsible for Dresden or the Trail of Tears? Or would it be more reasonable to say that the political and military leaders who ordered those atrocities are responsible?

Yep (and Republican as well, if you believe that ... though agreeing with a Communist might get me kicked out ). Yes, I think we, as a people, are responsible for Dresden, Trail of Tears, Hiroshima, and Nagaski, Sherman's March, My Lai, etc.... some of those things we support (atom bomb droppings) and some we don't.

I guess killing of civilians is ok to most people when it prevents more death otherwise.

[Dr Strangelove]

Anyway, this thread is about European anti-semitism, and fears that it will rise again. Need I remind you that France is the nation that gave us the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

When the Loyalists abandoned their lands in the US it was generally considered that they were committing treason. I'm not sure how their lands were distributed, but the claims of the few who returned were generally not honored.

The quetion of the flight of the Palestinians is not a simple one. Mant did leave because they didn't want to be caught in the crossfire between Arab League forces and the Israelis; they expected their side to win. There are known instances where Palestinians were indeed forced to leave. The key issue now is that the Palestinians didn't like who the Israelis elected even though negotiations were going ahead and they renwed the war.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch X
I have no idea where you are getting this from, but I haven't heard it anywhere, and it certainly doesn't make very much sense. The Israelis take a lot of heat whenever they shoot rioters, and it's simply inconceivable that they would try to make their jobs harder by luring out children who they know they aren't supposed to hit.

They don't take it in the US. While Chris claims that the US media is ignoring the attacks in Jewish temples and Jews in Europe, I've seen and heard far more news about that then about the executed Palestinian policemen or the dead priest. You cannot get reliable news about what Israel is doing in the American media, only about what the Palestinians have done. It paints an exceedingly one sided picture. There are a number of reasons why this is so, which I shan't go into, but it's not because of Jewish control of the media.

[GeneralTacticus]

originally posted by AH
Israel is fully to blame because of its illegal and brutal occupation of Palestinian lands. They are reaping what they sow.

The occupation would have been over years ago if the Pals hadn't been so obsessed with terrorism. Israel isn't going to withdraw from those territories unless it gets some tangible benefit. Why should they?

originally posted by AH
There will be no peace in the ME until Israel ends its occupation, comes to an accommodation over Jerusalem and removes its settlements from the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is in the wrong and to blame. There is no escaping it.

There will be no peace in the ME until the PA have it beaten into their thick skulls that violence won't get them what they want. It denies them what they want, or rather what they should want i.e. peace with Israel and their land back, NOT genocide against the Israelis and taking of Israeli land. The Pals are the aggressors. The Israelis kill civilians yes, but they don't do it on purpose. The suicide bombers, on the other hand, deliberately target civlilians and virtually ignore Israeli military ones.

AH, IIRC correctly you live in Australia. Would you consider the Australian govt to be in the wrong if the Australian Aborigines formed terrorist groups and started using suicide bombers to commit mass murder against civlilans?

Originally posted by chegitz
In any war, you attack an enemy at his weak point.
The IDF is far too strong to be combatted directly, so the only option left is to take the war to its supporters.

That is ****ing biased.

Fine then - if you approve that it is ok to attack an enemy at his weak point, I'll call up Sharon and tell him to cleanse palestinian civilians.

It's their weak point.

You say it's ok for palestinians to do, so it must be the same for IDF. You aren't biased aren't you?

Saying that in a war one must hit the enemy's weak point gives justification to just about anything. It justifies the committing of genocide, deliberate attacks on civlians, indisciminate use of nuclear weapons, chemical and biological warfare, and the impoverishment of nations. As Siro says, if you justify attacking civilians, lets cal, up the IDF and tell them to start mass murdering Palestinian civilians. No more civilians = no more terrorists. No more terrorists = no more problem.

Besides, the IDF are hardly any less vulnerable to suicide bombers than civilians. For one thing it's their job to fight them, so it's not like they're gonna try to escape.

Anyway, how can you justify DELIBERATE Palestinian attacks on civilians while at the same time condemning civilian deaths in IDF operations?

As I've said, the only way for the Pals to get what they deserve in the ME is to accept what they deserve and let the Israelis live in peace. You can't expect a nation with the military potential to squash the PA like a bug to meekly surrender under terrorist attacks, do you?

[Sirotnikov]

Similarly there are many Israelis who do not support Sharon's policies and there are many Palestinians who do not support terror tactics.

You're ignorant.

Sharon has 60% + approval rate, which is slightly lower than the 80% he was used to.

According to the latest polls, some 33% of the palestinians don't support terror.

So the two people are at war, my dear.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you are talking about the Church of Naitivity, Pals went into the church to hide out, and Israeli forces broke down the doors, violating a Christian site.

No, I'm talking about Saint Maria's church in bethlehem.

The ADL has been screaming anti-Semitism about the story about the arrest of the 120 Israeli spies. If you can't argue facts, confuse the issue by screaming anti-Semitism and racism.

I've read somewhere an article disproving this rumor of Israeli spies.

I tried to find it, but I can't.

It's not an ethical judgement.

Sure it is. You made it an ethical judgement.

If I target a building that I know has civilians in it, and they die

If the building is a legitimate target (ie factory, media, NOT school, hospital) then it's a legitmate target.

If I destroy the water source for an entire nation, that is premeditation.

You're confusing yourself again.

premeditation means you meant to hit that.

Now, if I actually meant to hit the water source - yes, it's a war crime / terrorist act.

However, if I hit it on purpose, be the damage the same - it's not a terrorist act.

If I blow up a pharmasuetical factory, knowing that without the medicines it produces, tens of thsousands will die, that is premeditation.

Again
premeditation means you knew it's pharmasuetical and meant to hit it.

You should judge by intent, not result.

AFAIK USA thought it was a chemical factory which is a legitmate target.

And it is intended. The deaths from these targets were not incidental, they were the intended result.

It depends.

Factories and such are legitimate war targets, since they contribute directly to war efforts.

Also it depends on what you meant, not the result.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
When you are treated like dirt, it stops being wrong.

Morals don't change when one's status in life changes, Imran.