• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Several of the usual gang of idiots have yet to post a single word in the thread: "Syria- 650 killed, 9000 arrested / Syria shelling residential areas"

Yet the shootings of a dozen or so "protestors" on Israels borders elicits a couple pages worth of ranting here in JREF official ongoing anti-semitic hissy fit thread.

It's revealing that those who proclaim themselves crusaders against islamophobia don't give a flying fig about gunning down protestors unless they can be used as a club against the jews.
 
bikerdruid said:
because they seem to have no problem with killing unarmed civilians, i don't believe that they can be trusted.
Click to expand...

Funny, you think the Palestinians -- who are most definitely capable of killing unarmed civilians -- can be trusted.

You also think that the Chinese or the Russians -- all of whom are indeed massively capable of killing unarmed civilians -- can be trusted with nukes.

And I don't see you worried about Iran's nuclear program, despite its massive murder of civilians.

As usual, the real indicator for you whether "can they be trusted" doesn't seem to be if they're capable of killing unarmed civlians or not. That's at most an excuse. The real indicator is whether they're Jews...
 
Skeptic said:
Funny, you think the Palestinians -- who are most definitely capable of killing unarmed civilians -- can be trusted.
Click to expand...

The Israelis are capable of murdering unarmed civilians. They've done it many times.

With that in mind, do you believe Israelis can be trusted?
 
Funny, I can think of a nation that not only has killed unarmed civilians (and quite recently, too), but that still is the one and only nation to have actually killed unarmed civilians using nuclear weapons.

And it's not Israel.
 
ANTPogo said:
Funny, I can think of a nation that not only has killed unarmed civilians (and quite recently, too), but that still is the one and only nation to have actually killed unarmed civilians using nuclear weapons.

And it's not Israel.
Click to expand...

Then they should have armed themselves.:boxedin:
 
ANTPogo said:
Funny, I can think of a nation that not only has killed unarmed civilians (and quite recently, too), but that still is the one and only nation to have actually killed unarmed civilians using nuclear weapons.

And it's not Israel.
Click to expand...

Sucks for them that they were standing next to a naval base when it was attacked.
 
bikerdruid said:
because they seem to have no problem with killing unarmed civilians,
Click to expand...
Except you have shown no evidence of this. I don't remember if it was this thread or another one where your own link showed civilan deaths in Cast Lead were wildly exaggerated.
 
ANTPogo said:
No kidding.

"There are too many non-Jews in Jerusalem! We'd better nuke the place before it's too late and they destroy it!"
Click to expand...
Now now, The Fool says he wants a serious discussion this time, so I'm sure he'll clarify that remark next time he logs in here. :boxedin:
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Several of the usual gang of idiots have yet to post a single word in the thread: "Syria- 650 killed, 9000 arrested / Syria shelling residential areas"

Yet the shootings of a dozen or so "protestors" on Israels borders elicits a couple pages worth of ranting here in JREF official ongoing anti-semitic hissy fit thread.

It's revealing that those who proclaim themselves crusaders against islamophobia don't give a flying fig about gunning down protestors unless they can be used as a club against the jews.
Click to expand...
possibly because the usual loudmouth bigot is not in there defending the syrian regime??


when syria does something stupid there tends to be general agreement so the threads die out....However when Israel does something stupid the usual bigmouth bigot defending Israel rends to whip the thread up.....get the Idea?
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
Then they should have armed themselves.:boxedin:
Click to expand...

Well, I believe the nukes were used in the hopes that all those millions of non-combatants who weren't killed wouldn't become combatants and killed anyway.

Seems to have worked out, if you ask me.

Sword_Of_Truth said:
Sucks for them that they were standing next to a naval base when it was attacked.
Click to expand...

It depresses me that my responding to the "fear" that Israel might nuke "noncombatants" by pointing out that the US did exactly that decades ago at the culmination of a bloody war (to try and head off further civilian bloodshed) will be taken less as an argument that such things aren't a sign of Israel's callous evilness, and more of an argument that such things are a sign of America's callous evilness.
 
Skeptic said:
Funny, you think the Palestinians -- who are most definitely capable of killing unarmed civilians -- can be trusted.
Click to expand...

the palestinians don't have nukes.
i see that as a good thing.

however, if you have an aggressive neighbour that has nukes, it would be wise to be similarly armed.
no one has yet proven that iran is building a bomb, but they are certasinly within their sovereign rights to do so.
americans claim that crime is lower when everyone is armed.
if that is true, then the greatest nuclear deterrent is to have either everyone armed, or no one armed.

oh, and yet again, it has nothing to do with jews.:rolleyes:
 
bikerdruid said:
they killed 20+ unarmed civilians a mere few days ago.
Click to expand...
Nope, sorry. Once they grouped together and charged through an international border, they are no longer 'civilians', but are instead 'invaders'.

I challenge you to find an incident where hundreds of individuals charged through an international border crossing and were not confronted with force.

But it's only bad when Israel does it, right?
 
mortimer said:
Nope, sorry. Once they grouped together and charged through an international border, they are no longer 'civilians', but are instead 'invaders'.

I challenge you to find an incident where hundreds of individuals charged through an international border crossing and were not confronted with force.

But it's only bad when Israel does it, right?
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate here; if US border agents shot and killed 20 Mexicans running across the border I think plenty of people would find that horrendous and despicable.
 
applecorped said:
To play devil's advocate here; if US border agents shot and killed 20 Mexicans running across the border I think plenty of people would find that horrendous and despicable.
Click to expand...

Not if the US was at war with a totalitarian terrorist Mexico and the Mexicans came there to riot and throw rocks at troops.
 
Last edited:
mortimer said:
Nope, sorry. Once they grouped together and charged through an international border, they are no longer 'civilians', but are instead 'invaders'.

I challenge you to find an incident where hundreds of individuals charged through an international border crossing and were not confronted with force.

But it's only bad when Israel does it, right?
Click to expand...

US mexico border....

AFAIK people are generally arrested and not (to my knowledge) shot.


If Syria or Lebanon want to get a whole pile of civilians to rattle the fence for propaganda purposes can I ask what sort of threat this poses to Israels survival? WTF is the point of shooting some of them?

also....can you site your source that they crossed the border? things that I have read so far indicate they had not crossed but were in a "no go" zone that is not part of Israel, I'd be keen to read about a border incursion if it happened.
 
applecorped said:
To play devil's advocate here; if US border agents shot and killed 20 Mexicans running across the border I think plenty of people would find that horrendous and despicable.
Click to expand...
If the border agents were outnumbered significantly? And the Mexicans were charging towards them? You think?

ETA: You're probably right. Plenty of people would find that horrendous and despicable. But would that be the correct reaction?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom