8 Children Killed in Israeli Attack

[moomin]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I can't buy a few square miles of land in the U.S. and declare it Gnutopia.

Oh, given a sufficient amount of simultaneous campaign contribuitions I'm sure something could be arranged.

[Kropotkin]

I'm still waiting for Shiber to give me (and Cybergnu, the president of Gnutopia) a reasonable response on the issue of agriculture. You made a very absurd conclution when you said that land unused today must have been unused 75 years ago since it was less Kibbutzes and settlements back then. Disregarding the part that seems to be ignoring the existance of anything but jews it's totally disregarding the agricultural revolution that has taken place in the region since then. I asked for figures.

[muxec]

Chuvaki, no pain no gain. I wonder why europeans criticaze Israel that simply retaliates?

[Shiber]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
It appears that Shiber eventually ran out of stalling arguments, and has since disappeared.

I was at the doctor! I'm undergoing a surgery this Tuesday and I had to be examined prior to the surgery. After the examination I got back home and read a good book by Terry Pratcheet (one of my favorite writers along with Asimov and Douglas Adams), walked my dog and had dinner. Then I decided to check the thread and discovered, to my surprise, that I've been declared as missing, presumed having run away from an argument.
I thought you can't declare someone missing unless he hasn't been in contact with someone during the last 24 hours..?

You were partially right though. I haven't disappeared, but I intend to leave this thread once and for all. We've been going around in circles for 12 pages now and neither of us has accepted any arguments made by the other side, which IMHO means that we might continue this thread up to page 30 without making any progress. I thereby declare that I find this thread pointless and that I intend never to enter this thread again.

Any childish posts stating that I "cowardly ran" because I "ran out of arguments" will be met with... well, rolling laughter I guess!
In the mean time, y'all can have a nice time arguing with each other and going in circles. I, on the other hand, am going to finish that book.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Shiber
You were partially right though. I haven't disappeared, but I intend to leave this thread once and for all. We've been going around in circles for 12 pages now and neither of us has accepted any arguments made by the other side, which IMHO means that we might continue this thread up to page 30 without making any progress.

Doh.

Welcome to the beautiful world of ME threads.

Natan and CyberGnu talked about every point you mentioned at least 20 times in the past.

[Ned]

S. Kroeze, I have read your posts and your arguments.

On the Mexican issue, yes the sovereign has the right to control immigration and deport illegal aliens. However, even we recognize that this is only theoretical when tens of millions of illegal aliens are involved.

I read a post here by a Serbian national a short time ago that justified Milosovic's adtions in Kosovo on the grounds that all he was trying to do was to "evict" illegal aliens. This hero of yours, your shinning example of one great leader, akin to Arafat, dedicated to restoring Serbian lands to its rightful rulers, is now on trial for crimes against humanity.

You animus againt the Jewish people is what is astounding. You dissect their religion and customs to show just how "evil" they truly are - in order to what? Justify your next steps in the ME?

I quote you a section from the Peel Report that demonstrates two things. First that the Palestinians wanted self rule in 1937. This I believe is a justified demand. I suppot it.

However, the second half of the equation is where the problem lies. They not only wanted self rule, but they wanted to rule the Jews and put an end to the Jewish National Home. Given the past violence between the two groups, the British could not acceed to this demand. The likely result would not be some "benign" tolerance.

As of the legendary tolerance of the Muslims, the whole point of the Crusades was to restore the rights of Christians to visit the Holy Land which was then being denied by the "tolerant" Muslim occupiers.

More tolerance: The current intifada began when, IIRC, Sharon visited the temple mount, one of the most sacred places in Judaism. What tolerance is this?

I see Islam as being one of the most intollerant religions on this planet. They once conquered far and wide to spread their religion to the Infidel. This happen only three other times in history. Once when Cyrus tried to conquer the world to spread Zoroastrianism. A second when Chalemagne coquered the Saxons and other Germans tribes to spread Catholicism. And, finally, when the Spanish conquered in the New World in order to spread the faith. At least in the cases of Christianity and Islam, the conversion were almost 100%, leading one to believe that conversion was not optional.

My obviously hostile reacton to Islam is due to its intollerance. I see Islam as being a religion of hatred, a religion that preaches the killig of the Infidel. I understand from George Bush that Islam is a peaceful religion. But I simply don't see any examples of this in current history. What I see, instead, is Jihad.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Ned
S. Kroeze, I have read your posts and your arguments.

Dear Ned,

Thanks a lot for showing your true face!
This will make further discussion probably redundant.

On the Mexican issue, yes the sovereign has the right to control immigration and deport illegal aliens. However, even we recognize that this is only theoretical when tens of millions of illegal aliens are involved.

I read a post here by a Serbian national a short time ago that justified Milosovic's adtions in Kosovo on the grounds that all he was trying to do was to "evict" illegal aliens. This hero of yours, your shinning example of one great leader, akin to Arafat, dedicated to restoring Serbian lands to its rightful rulers, is now on trial for crimes against humanity.

I already suspected your reading skills were a bit poor.
I am sorry to see my suspicions confirmed.

Could you please point out that sentence/post where I have praised Arafat/Milosevic/both?
There is another point that escapes me: to my modest insights the Arabs have been evicted from their land, while the number of Zionist Jews in Palestine has significantly increased.
When I err on this issue, please correct me!
(I hope you know Milisevic -like most Serbs- is a Christian?)

You animus againt the Jewish people is what is astounding.

Could you please give one -just ONE- example of any remark made by me inimical to Jews in general?

Generally I portray them as victims of Western/Christian civilisation.
For your information: not ALL Jews are/were necessarily Zionists. Zionism is of relative recent date (1896), while Judaism is very old. Unfortunately, many non-Zionists were killed during the Holocaust, while some Jews were -against their true desire- forced to migrate to Palestine.
You don't think that something should have been done to reduce the numbers of Holocaust victims?

It is a real shame you avoided answering this question:
Whose fault was it that so many settlers had migrated to Palestine in so short a period of time?

(Or do you hold the Arabs in Palestine responsible for 2,000 years of Christian anti-Semitism, the pogroms in Eastern Europe and the rise of Nazism? It wouldn't surprise me anymore...)
AND: Was Palestine a safe area for Jews YES or NO?(safer than Western Europe or the US that is)
-because when Muslims are the most bloodthirsty of men -if they are human at all- this what NOT a safe area.

You dissect their religion and customs to show just how "evil" they truly are - in order to what?

Could you please show me one -just ONE- example of any remark I have ever made inimical to Jewish religion or Jewish customs?

Justify your next steps(?) in the ME?

I am very sorry to disappoint you, but I have never visited the Middle East. And the chance I will visit the Middle East ever in my life is rather small -though I might one day visit Egypt or perhaps western Turkey because I am interested in Antiquity (my field of knowledge) and Byzantium.
What 'steps' did you have in mind?

Though I will probably not convince you, I am telling the truth when I say I am a rather quiet and law-abiding individual, I even pay my taxes.

Let's make it clear that it is not my fault when you have some quarrel with your girl-friend, your parents or your employer.
I hope you can solve your personal problems soon, but I hope you don't mind when I do not think it appropriate to vent your rage on a complete stranger.
I sincerely hope you will recover soon!

I quote you a section from the Peel Report that demonstrates two things. First that the Palestinians wanted self rule in 1937. This I believe is a justified demand. I suppot it.

However, the second half of the equation is where the problem lies. They not only wanted self rule, but they wanted to rule the Jews and put an end to the Jewish National Home. Given the past violence between the two groups, the British could not acceed to this demand. The likely result would not be some "benign" tolerance.

Not giving sovereignty to immigrants is NOT identical to expelling (or killing) them.
When will the U.S. cede a third of its territory to those illegal Mexican immigrants -giving them a National Home?

Perhaps we are misunderstanding one another on this point, but I hope you have by now understood that this Peel Commisssion report preceded the 'Great Revolt'. That no democratic reform was introduced doubtless made the Arabs more violent.
I am still waiting for your proofs of those 'constant attacks' I am so eagerly expecting. I will repeat one more time my request:

Please show me evidence of those 'constant attacks' on Jews by Arabs before 1937
When you can find examples of pogroms in other Muslim countries you may list them too. Since there were so many it will be very easy to make a devastating list.
And please mention your sources!

As of the legendary tolerance of the Muslims, the whole point of the Crusades was to restore the rights of Christians to visit the Holy Land which was then being denied by the "tolerant" Muslim occupiers.

Is that also the reason they immediately killed ALL inhabitants of Jerusalem, among whom were many Christians, after conquering the city in 1099?
When you would like to discuss the Crusades please feel free to start a new thread about it!

For the moment I will only make the remark that a state can determine which individuals enter its territory. Or do you think that a country should give ALL people -also known enemies and possible terrorists free access?
There are so many countries which require a visa.
What do you think would have happened to a Muslim visiting Christian Europe?

More tolerance: The current intifada began when, IIRC, Sharon visited the temple mount, one of the most sacred places in Judaism. What tolerance is this?

The thought probably never occurred to you that Sharon is not really popular among Muslims?
Excuse me, this is beyond the point!
The point is of course that a non-Western people is by nature subject to Westerners. So even when they are exposed to ethnic cleansing, colonial rule, expropriation, systematic discrimination, foreign occupation, they have NEVER the right to revolt.
Instead they should rejoice because they are ruled by 'civilised' people!

I see Islam as being one of the most intolerant religions on this planet.

Thanks a lot for finally showing your true colours!
It is most clear your knowledge of history at large -and Islam in particular- is a bit shallow and you are not truly interested (or too lazy) to enlarge your learning.
I could list ALL crimes of Christianity and Western civilisation (Holocaust, murder of the Indians, slave trade of Africans, etc.) -which will be hard to beat anyway- but you will remain convinced of the superiority of Western Christianity.
CONGRATULATIONS!

They once conquered far and wide to spread their religion to the Infidel. This happen only three other times in history. Once when Cyrus tried to conquer the world to spread Zoroastrianism. A second when Chalemagne coquered the Saxons and other Germans tribes to spread Catholicism. And, finally, when the Spanish conquered in the New World in order to spread the faith. At least in the cases of Christianity and Islam, the conversion were almost 100%, leading one to believe that conversion was not optional.

First there is a difference between conquering a region and administrating it. Yes, the Muslims conquered a large empire; afterwards their rule proved to be quite tolerant.
(by the way, there were many LARGE empires in History, Rome, China, Alexander....)
I know I am asking to much, but could you please again give evidence of those draconian 100% Islamic conversions?
Ever heard of the Inquisition, witch-hunts, heresies?

Even today there are quite a lot of Christians living in the Middle East, even in Palestine. To my knowledge Christianity is beyond doubt the dominant religion of the Balkans -though the region was under Ottoman rule for many centuries.
How many Hindus and Buddhists still live today in India?
I can go on, but this should do.

My obviously hostile reacton to Islam is due to its intollerance. I see Islam as being a religion of hatred, a religion that preaches the killig of the Infidel. I understand from George Bush that Islam is a peaceful religion. But I simply don't see any examples of this in current history. What I see, instead, is Jihad.

When you think the utterances of G.Bush have any scientific value you are truly lost.
Your opinion becomes perfectly clear!
Of course making any attempt to provide substantial evidence is not necessary.....
After all, the Western world has during the last two centuries never done any wrong to any Muslim; no colonisation and settlement, no hostile interference ever. Muslims (like Jews) have always been treated as equal human beings. They are never depicted in the West as savages, ape-men etc...

You should definitely read a book written by W.Ziff, The rape of Palestine; you will doubtless enjoy it because it will confirm all your prejudices!

"An extreme example of this can be found in The Rape of Palestine, a book written by William Ziff, an American representative of the Revisionist movement. Ziff described the Palestinian Arabs as a 'sickly and degenerate race'[25] that was 'low on the scale of human development'. In explaining the origins of the Palestinians, Ziff noted that 'from the steppes, mountains and deserts an agglomeration of primitive and savage man had swarmed in successive waves over Palestine and left their seed.'

Since to Ziff the Palestinians were the result of a 'churning stew of races', it should not be surprising that he believed that they had 'virtually no creative gifts'. He also charged that 'the ruling passion of an Arab is greediness of gold.' Ziff suggested that an Arab's 'love of money is such that he loses all sense of proportion whenever currency is dsicussed.' Similar remarks directed against the Jews could easily be found in any number of anti-Semitic propaganda sheets then being published in Germany.[*] Considering the inflammatory nature of the Revisionist attitude toward the Arabs, it was inevitable that Jabotinsky's followers would provoke violence in Palestine."

(source: M.Palumbo, 'The Palestinian Catastrophe',1987)

[25] William Ziff, The Rape of Palestine, p. 373.[*] Not surprisingly Ziff's book was endorsed by many of the leading members of the 'American liberal establishment' of the 1930s. Like their equivalent in our own day, they saw no inconsistency in condemning anti-Semitism while supporting Zionist anti-Arab racism.
note for Sirotnikov: 'The Palestinian Catastrophe' is not identical to 'How Israel Was Won' by B.Thomas; it was written by another author and has a different title; nor was it published by Neturei Karta
Nevertheless this knowledge is of dubious sources and factually incorrect or misleading. True specialists do not need to go to the library and search for quotes proving that this is bull; they prove their right by repeating it a zillion times.
The fact that person after person, who studied Israeli history and Israeli law for final tests in Israel does not agree with this information, proves that this information is most probably wrong.
No one should bother much for one misleaded historian with an alt.history book based on UN and Israeli records

Let's hope you enjoy your feelings of moral superiority!
When you are unwilling to answer my questions, and categorically refuse to present evidence of Muslim depravity, it is useless to continue the discussion.

Some other question you consistently decline to consider:
Do Mexican immigrants in the U.S. also oppose democracy and self-government?
How did the Zionists behave in Palestine?
Did the Arab -Muslim, Christian AND Jewish- population have any influence on Zionist immigration and acquisition of land?
IF Palestine was the most unsafe place on earth to live for a Jew, which morbid, sadistic crooks had invented the very idea to migrate to this region?

Sincerely,

S.Kroeze

[Ned]

S. Kroeze,

Just a few quick answers: My primary source is the US Army Area handbook on Palestine. I also read the original documents to which it makes reference.

I know very little about the internal Jewish or Muslim religious doctrines. I think they are largely irrelevant to this dicussion. I accept that each religion, as does the Cristian religion, has holy places in Palestine, aka, the Holy Land, the Promised Land or Terra Sancta.

I suspect we in the US get along well with the Mexican immigrants because they are Catholics. It might be different if they were a non Christian religion and therefor had a completely different value system, etc. But they don't, so the issue is academic.

I referenced Milosovic and Arafat because of seem alike in trying to take back the land from the illegal immigrants, something you seem to espouse for the Jews in the ME.

As for the attacks on Jews - see the Army Handbook. There were many, beginning in early April, 1920, in Jerusalem.

Back to the "tolerance" issue, you seem to evade the point by making an issue of the Crusader attrocities in the Holy Land and Sharon's unpopularity with the Palestinians.

The cause for the Crusades remains. The Muslim occuppiers cut off Christian access.

The cause for the Intifada remains: a Jewish politician visited land the Muslims held sacred, ignoring the fact that the same land is also sacred to the Jews. This kind of reaction tells the world that we cannot trust once against turning these holy sites over to the sovereignty of the Muslim,

I personally favor the original UN plan - that Jerusalem be administered by an international body.

(BTW, "next steps" is an "expression." It really means what you intend to do next.)

[CyberGnu]

Well, shiber, laugh all you want, but I must conclude that you left because you ran out of stalling arguments...

We've proven our points conclusively, met your every argument... Feel free to add some more or elaborate on your past, but to say "it's a tie" after all your arguments have been defeated... Well, that is running away....

I hope you will be OK vis-a-vi your operation, though.

[Zylka]

WOW ISN'T THIS DEBATE ABSOLUTELY F*CKING INTERESTING

[CyberGnu]

?

[Al'Kimiya]

http://www.underash.net/

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Zylka
WOW ISN'T THIS DEBATE ABSOLUTELY F*CKING INTERESTING

*the spam sharks circle*

[MOBIUS]

Sigh, let's reply to your specious arguments, as well as your blatant attempts to bend the truth...

Most of this is, as usual, complete crap. So I'll just answer the more entertaining stuff before consigning the rest to the garbage can...

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
well if you're not going to address this seriously, I'm not going to argue with you as it is pointless.

I never know if you're coming back and you usually don't come back. This thread is an exception.

What up, lost your friends?

For a start, after a post or two of shooting down your outrageous claims I've made my point and move on, as I shall show now...

I admit that Sharon has responsability or liability. choose the word.

That doesn't make him a criminal.

Well DOH! Those were war crimes, if he is responsible - then logically he is a war criminal!

Why I bother to take seriously answering you, I shall never know - your arguments are truly pathetic...

Let's take a school for example. One kid has killed another while the teacher wasn't looking. Is the teacher responsible? Sure. Is he a criminal? nope.

Man, are you trippin' or what - I cannot believe you think you can get away feeding this BS!!!

Is it any wonder no one takes you seriously?

So, Sabra and Shatilla is a school, right? Sharon the Headmaster?

OK, This headmaster decides to invite the teachers from the neighbouring school into his school - only days after the headmaster of this other school was assassinated by some kids from the same families as those going to 'Mr' Sharon's school... Anyway, these teachers are really pissed off and they decided to bring their guns!

Now, nice 'Mr' Sharon has decided to put his teachers in a cordon around the gates of the school to prevent any kids from running truant - in fact he keeps them locked up in the school for hours as the teachers from the other school go on a murderous rampage!

Actually Siro, it is deeply insulting to compare the deaths of 2,000 murdered men, women and children to a 'kid killed while the teacher looks the other way'...

But then it is evident that you consider the lives of innocent Palestinians beneath your contempt...

As I've said - I hold him accountable for it and I think it was right that he was demoted and had 19 years of political willderness.

Then he's guilty Q.E.D.

Yes, he was so badly punished for those murders that he was allowed to build and expand the settlements in the occupied territories etc. Then after that they promoted him to the highest office in all the land! Some punishment!

I admit that there is a slight such possibility, but only in a very extreme case.

I do not actually believe that Israel attacked the USS liberty on purpose.

Furthermore it's nice you hold me accountable as the official Israeli spokesman. If I say something it must be true then, no?

We had you cornered like a rat, spewing contradictory babble about whether the flag was limp - or that the ship was sailing too fast... Man, you didn't know which way to turn...

This was the extreme case Siro, they knew exactly where to attack, they knew exactly what they were attacking and they attacked for SO LONG!!!

Surely if it were all a mistake you can tell me all the Israelis that were court martialled or sent into the 'wilderness' as you so euphemistically put it...

I mean, some really high ranking heads must have rolled eh Siro?

It was a blatant and deliberate attack on a USS ship!

No one but the most blinkered, head-in-the-sand, brainwashed apologist could ever hope to think otherwise...

Settlements: I admit that there are problematic issues with it, and generally there is injustice caused by them being there.

However, currently they serve a strategic goal and should stay there until a peace agreement comes.

Understatement of the millenium!!!!! Of course they serve a strategic purpose, while they remain as the most naked provocation to Palestinians - the Israelis have the excuse to remain forcibly subjugating the Palestinians... 41% of the occupied territories are already under the direct control of the settlements as it is - it is a number that is increasing!

No, you can have me say something and attempt to twist my words like you are doing to anything you ever read about the ME.

See above Siro, you are so BUSTED! I don't need to twist anything - all I have to do is give you enough rope...

I hold the opinion that if you quit - you know you've lost.

You seem to hold the opinion that if you ignore what I say and keep adding moronic accusations - you win.

Yes, no matter how wrong you are - you must not quit!!! Hence, in your increasing desperation you post utter nonsense, and then I ignore it and accuse you for posting nonsense...

All it does is show that you know you cannot answer my points - even in your twisted apologist mind you know that Sharon launched an attack that murdered a large number of children at the precise time that Hamas was considering stopping it's attacks!

do me a favour - don't be such a clear biggot.

Tell that to the international news agencies like CNN - hey guys, Siro says you're all bigots!

When have Hamas actually said that they are considering to stop attacks?

Ask CNN...

As for the attack - the military is responsible for preventing casualties - not sharon. Sharon says "kill that terrorist". If the military ****ed up, it's their fault.

It was reported that Sharon gave the personal order for this attack - it is inconceivable that he did not realise the ramifications of dropping a 1000kg bomb on a heavily populated block of flats!!!

Nope.

I'm content he is dead.
I condem the way in which it was done which caused the death of innocent children.

The tone of your initial posts were that they were acceptable losses...

Because you know that if you answer my question it's going to raise some very uncomfortable questions about how Israel has admitted to killing about as many Palestinian civilians 'accidentally' as the Palestinians have blown up in suicide attacks!!!

Look at the difference.
Israel kills accidentally.
Palestinians kill on purpose.

Is an accident the same as first degree murder?

Actually I suppose it's called Manslaughter... So, how many IDF personel have been convicted of these hundreds of 'accidental' deaths...

I mean what is an accident?

If for example you bomb a heavily populated apartment block with a one ton bomb - you must know you are going to kill innocent people...

Are they accidents, is that your definition of an accident - we knew we'd kill civilians, but we didn't mean to!

It's pure murder!

Therefore I still hold the opinion that Israeli attacks on terrorists are justified, and if all measures were taken, some civilian death is acceptable.

Civilian death is never acceptable.

However, attacks targetted at civilians are never ever ever justified.

Like a 1000kg bomb hitting an apartment block?



You claim you're on holiday, guess you'd better get your D/L Shiber to answer this...

[muxec]

People some of us very ...mmm... bordered. You think that in war only soliders may be killed. Give me example of at least one war with no casaulties of civilians.