Bloodbath in Gaza

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Fez


Well in the English I speak it is fascist... I never heard of facist ever used... it is just a silly spelling error...

Even now Chris62 is starting to piss me off...

I'm about 8 pages too late in those comments. Resolved several pages back.

Chris62 : It is bear not bare .

[Boris Godunov]

Maybe the Palestinians got into a grammatical argument with the IDF like this one, which sparked the massacre. In that case, I can see how it happened...

[Drake Tungsten]

Maybe the Palestinians got into a grammatical argument with the IDF like this one, which sparked the massacre. In that case, I can see how it happened...

I can also see how suicide bombers are born. This idiotic argument is making me consider killing myself...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Webster's colligate dictionary:

Facist.

This was brilliant, if intended.

Absolutely brilliant.

[orange]

Tuberski - Thank you! Are you positive?? I thought so too but I got yelled at so I don't know...

[Tuberski]

Yes I am sure. His dictionary was from 1949, so maybe then it was correct.

[orange]

hahaha

Thanks so much. I thought I was losing my mind there for a second.

I was corrected on two spelling errors that were correct the first time around

[KrazyHorse]

I still think that he's had you running after your own tails for the last 4 pages.

"colligate" dictionary? "facism"?

Come on, now...

[orange]

he didn't believe us

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Frogger
I still think that he's had you running after your own tails for the last 4 pages.

"colligate" dictionary? "facism"?

Come on, now...

Haven't you ever paid attentions to his posts? They are always rife with atrocious spelling.

[KrazyHorse]

He doesn't usually defend it, though...

[Boris Godunov]

With him, I never know...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
In all honesty, i intellectually feel horror at the killing of civilians, but do i deeply care? No, for too many people die in so many places that only a fool really cares. The fact is that violence in the ME is very low-key. Only 2500 dead, at most, since 2000, and only 5000 at most since 1987. In just 2 years, there were ten times the death in Eritrea, ethiopia war, and its no comparison to countless other wars around the world.

Hell, the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, in all its forms could not have claimed more than 200,000 people in 50 years, which sounds like a huge number but realy isn't. I mean, more than that died in Central America during a shorter span of time. Hell, far more died in the Iran-Iraq war, and I have no clue how much the 'all Arabs' war in yemen killed, but it could be more. So why does this low intesity conflict get so mush freaking attention? I think because it is seen as a 'clash' of civs and blah blah.... that kind of crap, and if anything, that kind of attention detracts from people getting dwn to business.

I actually agree with Cris that outside intrvension is key to a peace deal. Just don't tell that to Siro or Eli.

Good post. I think the reason that this gets so much attention is the fact that it is occurring in "The Holy Land" for the West, which is where most of the news organizations are from. I also agree that the coverage is blown out of all proportion to the action. For instance, the recent pogrom in India killed far more people in a week than the Arab-Israeli conflict has in the last year.

Interestingly that pogrom was related pretty directly to a very similar issue as the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely the building of a Mosque on (in this case) one of the Hindu's holiest shrines centuries ago, and the destruction of that Mosque a few years ago by Hindu fundamentalists who plan to rebuild their temple. I guess if the Muslims hadn't wanted to be rolled back and destroyed they shouldn't have destroyed everyone else's temples and constructed Mosques in their place.

As for the thread in general, does anyone know what really happened? I'm getting very little information, and a lot of it is conflicting. I saw some film of people going to the hospital, supposedly as a result of an Israeli helicopter fired missle, fired on to a street at 4:00 am. They were obviously military people though, two were still carrying assault weapons and all were wearing military type load bearing equipment. This was on BBC.

I have also heard that the Israelis fired at a hospital, and there was film of that hospital, with one room looking like it had been hit with a shell or a missle. Whence all the casualties? Have the Israelis gone mad and decided to wipe out the Palestinian people in the least effective way? Have the Palestinians tricked the Israelis into committing an attrocity (or done so themselves and shifted the blame)? Wha Happen?

[axi]

chegitz:
quote]Lots of evil people hide themselves among civilian populations. Look at the US government for example.[/quote]



Saint Marcus:

Which only points out that, perhaps, the IDF shouldn't have been in this "enemy city" in the first place?

My thoughts exactly.

GePaP:

You guys don't give a damn if a million Jews die, is just that they are killing Arabs or being killed by Arabs, so thats the issue. Pathetic.

Contempt for Arabs or for Jews? Who is the most important factor here? If they were Greeks killing and getting killed by Arabs, would the same people who support or blame the Jews support or blame the Greeks? Likewise, if they were Hindus (or whatever) in the place of the Arabs, would there be the same support/contempt for them? Anyway, bigotry and bouble standards are pathetic any way you see it.

Ned:

When the Serbs in Bosnia or the KLA in Kosovo attack UN forces, I assume your solution is the same, withdraw.

Funny thing for you to mention the KLA in this case, since your argument provides the best excuse ever to Milosevich's troops, who, if the KLA killed a policeman, would be justified to shell Albanian villages. Is it or is it not the same situation? Yet I don't see any NATO aircraft bombing Tel Aviv...

FelchX:

The justification for civilian protection is that they do not take an active part in the war. However, if they do, then they are legitimate targets. If they try to protect other civilians who are committing war crimes, then they are also legitimate targets.

These are war ethics of the past century. Total war has sent them to oblivion. Every civilian takes an active part in the war. The man the war industry and the transportations and communications network. It doesn't need to be a WW2-type large scale war. In Serbia, TV stations, bridges, oil refineries and other factories were targeted and any civilians in them killed. Were they taking an active part in the war? Yes and no. Do the Palestinian and the Israeli population take an active part in the conflict? Yes and no. Warmongers and militants of all sides say it's a yes, always yes, at least for the enemy's side. It's up to us to beat this back and make popular the moral view that it's a no, always no, however big their resistance to the enemy army is. It's the army has no right to fight against civilians, civilians have every right to fight against the army.

Chris62:

In fact, one swine here likes to call the Jews Nazis, and says they "play for sympathy" based on SIX MILLION OF THEM BEING EXTERMINATED BY PEOPLE OF HIS ILK.

Even though you are not referring to me or the people of my ilk here, I too like to call the Israelis fascists, simply because they are. Zionism is nothing more but a version of fascism. The Nazis, by exterminating 6 million Jews, taught the remaining that they should be like them if they wanted to survive. If you see it socioeconomically, fascism is a regime where the petty bourgeois masses of the nation stick together and satisfy the economic claims of the big capital and the proletariat via the ruthless exploitation of foreign populations which ensures profits for the capitalists and good wages for the workers from a bustling war economy. It's not that different from the classic imperialism (the current USA setup f.e.), the only difference being that the petty bourgeois are on the helm instead of the big capital, which makes the scheme more resilient to the communist threat and more brutal to the oppressed foreign masses. This brutal exploitation is justified to the working masses and petty bougeois alike by an ideological superstructure of racism. Of course, in extreme cases like late Nazism and Zionism, the superstructure gets more emphatic than the economic base and tends to overshadow it.

[Saint Marcus]

Giancarlo just agreed with me