Palestine Or Israel?

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Now your going in an entirely different direction.
What do you call that form of debate?
Crazy straw?

Those facts are a bitch, aren't they

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@15 June 2003 - 22:50
However they have certainly been carrying out atrocities on a regular basis for many years. And lets not forget that a war criminal runs the country.

Assigning the designations "War Criminal" and "Atrocities" are risky also-I think a widely focused application of those terms (at least as loosely attributed as the U.N. does) would render anyone who's held a gun guilty of the appellation "War Criminal", and if he has fired said gun he likewise is guilty of concommitant atrocities.

I think the "World Court" is starved for customers: "What if you threw an international criminal prosecution and nobody came?"

Kofi Annan and the U.N. strive for legitimacy and relevance, as does France, et.al.

This is not to say Sharon is unstained, not at all; but I can't put him on the same plane as Arafat.

We shall continue to sort this out, I trust.

I don't think my friend ShockAndAwe^i^ hates all Muslims, but he gets very impatient with the ones who evince this unremitting and unrepentant wrongheadedness which we ALL find so bedevilling.

Right, Shock?

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Of course I don't hate all muslims.
I'm talking about terrorists.
Yes I'm getting impatient with the Palestinian problem and I don't have to much sympathy for them.
They sent terrorists to kill our soldiers, celebrated the 3000 dead on 911 and on and on.

I don't hate anyone and am a very forgiving person.
I hate evil!

Btw I changed my sig to match the true meaning of Darkside of the moon.

because everything under the son is in tune, but the son is eclipsed by the moon!

[evilbagpuss]

Assigning the designations "War Criminal" and "Atrocities" are risky also

Absolutely not. Sharon personally rounded up a load of Palestinian men who were never seen again. It's a verified fact and its a war crime. At least it was when the same thing happened in what used to be Yugoslavia.

Dropping a missile onto a dense residential area killing 150 civilians is an atrocity.

This is why Israel has more UN resolutions against it than Iraq. If the USA hadn't used their veto repeatedley there would be many more.

I don't think my friend ShockAndAwe^i^ hates all Muslims

On the contrary....

All the politically correct talk in the world can't hide true Islam.
It's evil!!

It's Pure evil from it's inception

Could he make it any clearer?

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Calling Islam Evil is correct and not hatred towards Muslims.
I've checked it out myself.
Read Salmon Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses.
He's was a muslim!

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Using the UN as a moral judge is a joke.
Hey I gotta go check and see if anyone has a uncorrupted version of PSP 8.
I'll be back.

[clocker]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@15 June 2003 - 22:04

What countries?

the UK and Spain come to mind immediately (IRA and ETA respectively)

You dont think Israel is the only country in the world to experience terrorism do you? Are you seriously trying to argue that you cant fight terrorism without killing 100's of civilians? I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with that comment.

Do you really want to use the UK v. IRA as an example of a war on terrorism without civilian casualties?
How do you single out the active participants in a terrorist conflict when using the general populace as cover is a primary stategic tactic
and a significant percentage of the population is complicit in the act?

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

Wow
I couldn't have put it any better than that.
Btw Clocker is a liberal and I don't hate him.

[evilbagpuss]

Do you really want to use the UK v. IRA as an example of a war on terrorism without civilian casualties?

lol, I can't believe your comparing the two. I can collect the figures if you wish but I shouldnt need to. The number of civilian casualties caused by British troops in that conflict is miniscule in comparion to the thousands of Palestinian civilians.

How do you single out the active participants in a terrorist conflict when using the general populace as cover is a primary stategic tactic
and a significant percentage of the population is complicit in the act?

Well how does everyone else manage to do it?? I suggest a good way to avoid civilian casualties might be to stop launching bloody missile attacks on crowded residential areas!!

This is going all over the place... lets get down to the core issue. This is my argument.

1) Nazis killing innocent Jews was wrong.
2) Palestinian terrorists killing Israeli civilians is wrong.
3) Israeli troops killing Palestinian civilians is wrong.

I'm sure you guys dont have any problems with 1 and 2. What on Earth is so difficult about number 3? Do you agree with number 3 yes or no? This is as simple as it gets.

If you do agree how can you possibly argue regular missile attacks on residential areas are acceptable? Answer: You cant.

If you dont agree with number 3, you're just as evil as any terrorist.

[clocker]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@15 June 2003 - 23:20


This is going all over the place... lets get down to the core issue. This is my argument.

1) Nazis killing innocent Jews was wrong.
2) Palestinian terrorists killing Israeli civilians is wrong.
3) Israeli troops killing Palestinian civilians is wrong.

That is not an argument, that is a statement.
I agree with all three.

After rereading all of your posts in this thread I have concluded that you are pro-Palestinian.
Every example of violence you have cited has been Israeli.
You have used the words "genocide" and "war criminal" refering to Israelis.
Not one mention of corresponding acts by Palestinian fighters/leaders.

Is this a fair assessment?