Don't Be Fooled By The Israeli Regime...

[SlapStick 0]

i condemn all violence against innocents. why are u asking?

You didn't answer the question.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

i condemn all violence against innocents. why are u asking?

You didn't exactly answer the question, did you? I ask because you have demonstrated a one-sided view of the events in the Region. You clearly identify with the Palestinians over the Israelis. I wanted to see if you would condemn actions such as the Palestinian Bomber who killed over 15 people and injured scores of others in a Jerusalem Pizzeria in August of 2001.

[All_In 0]

You didn't exactly answer the question, did you? I ask because you have demonstrated a one-sided view of the events in the Region. You clearly identify with the Palestinians over the Israelis. I wanted to see if you would condemn actions such as the Palestinian Bomber who killed over 15 people and injured scores of others in a Jerusalem Pizzeria in August of 2001.

i have to laugh at the level of comprehension in this forum. i answered your question.do u condemn the disproportionate killing and maiming of palestinian civilians by israel? how they have killed thousands more than any palestinian faction, gov, etc combined?i will always side with freedom fighters who challenge an oppressive and unjust regime. the means do not justify the ends, but overwhelmingly israel has been the killer. the onus is on israel and its supporters to justify their actions.

[CaneBrain 95]

the means do not justify the ends, but overwhelmingly israel has been the killer. the onus is on israel and its supporters to justify their actions.

most of the world does not agree with you in this statement. guess it's because jews control the media.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

i have to laugh at the level of comprehension in this forum. i answered your question.do u condemn the disproportionate killing and maiming of palestinian civilians by israel? how they have killed thousands more than any palestinian faction, gov, etc combined?i will always side with freedom fighters who challenge an oppressive and unjust regime. the means do not justify the ends, but overwhelmingly israel has been the killer. the onus is on israel and its supporters to justify their actions.

No. You did not answer the question.I asked:

Can you, without equivocation nor prevarication, simply condemn the practice of blowing up Civilian Markets, busses, and Pizzerias (and while we are at it - the practice of lobbing indiscriminate bombs into civilian areas). I am not looking for an excuse for why people strap on bombs or leave a truck bomb in a Market. I'm not looking for explanations of why these are legitimate targets and actions. I'm not looking for a history lesson of who did what first to whom. Just a simple condemnation of those practices and those who engage in them.

This isn't difficult. But apparently you can't do this. Your response is a prevarication. Do you condemn the bombing of civilian markets, busses, pizzerias, and other non-military targets in Israel and other places?Try this if it is easier for you: do you condemn the bombing of the Jerusalem Pizzeria in August of 2001?

[All_In 0]

most of the world does not agree with you in this statement. guess it's because jews control the media.

actually most of the world does agree, u should look up facts rather than make stuff up and try to bait me into an anti-semetic argument.

[All_In 0]

No. You did not answer the question.I asked:This isn't difficult. But apparently you can't do this. Your response is a prevarication. Do you condemn the bombing of civilian markets, busses, pizzerias, and other non-military targets in Israel and other places?Try this if it is easier for you: do you condemn the bombing of the Jerusalem Pizzeria in August of 2001?

oh man....like i said i condemn ALL acts of violence against innocents, israelis, palestinians, etc..my statement is inclusive, not a 'prevarication', u didn't use that word correctly.now will u answer my previous question?btw, does a pizzeria hold more value than a home? u do know, of course, that israel has destroyed many more homes than any palestinian group, right? bombed more markets too.u should quit trying to distract the argument with semantics. why are u so evasive about addressing israel's greater role in destruction and death? how they are dominating a refugee population with one of the world's most advanced military, and many cheer that on. why is that? is this a moral position?

[Balloon guy 158]

actually most of the world does agree, u should look up facts rather than make stuff up and try to bait me into an anti-semetic argument.

Luckily, only America's opinion matters in this, so the rest of the world can whine all day like little girls while America sides with Israel.

[Mercury69 3]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/090813/worl...rights_watch_15Is it possible the Human Rights Watch group isn't an objective observer? Why, for example, would this group be the ONLY group reporting these deaths? Why is this group fundraising in Saudi Arabia? Why would Palestinians wave white flags when it seems to be a known fact that doing so is something that is not an acceptable means of indicating acquiescence?It's always nice to have a POV. Just remember that your angle is one of many.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/090813/worl...rights_watch_15Is it possible the Human Rights Watch group isn't an objective observer? Why, for example, would this group be the ONLY group reporting these deaths? Why is this group fundraising in Saudi Arabia? Why would Palestinians wave white flags when it seems to be a known fact that doing so is something that is not an acceptable means of indicating acquiescence?It's always nice to have a POV. Just remember that your angle is one of many.

While I do understand the doubt about their objectivity, I don't understand the negative implications of a Global Organization raising funds in Saudi Arabia.

[Mercury69 3]

While I do understand the doubt about their objectivity, I don't understand the negative implications of a Global Organization raising funds in Saudi Arabia.

While there is nothing inherently wrong with it and I haven't gone as far as trying to find out the "cause" for the fund raising, the fact that it's taking place in the richest Muslim nation in the world leads to questions about the group's objectivity in reporting against the Israeli actions. Part of my point is that inference and insinuation without substantiation is rampant on both sides of this media debate.Also, there's a lot of context lacking in the "report", such as acknowledgement that there is actually a war going on and that Hamas has been known to use white-flag waving civilans as cover.Criticisms against HRW, a Wiki page with links

[owise1 0]

i know it is a great thing to believe that non-violence can solve major political disputes, india is usually cited as an example.for the most part violence is the currency that buys freedom in this world. the US formation is a perfect example (and anthem).i also do not soley read AJ. i read from cnn and fox (as well others). i try to gather news from a variety of sources. i believe that every news source has a certain bias, it boils down to what each of us thinks is 'just', and to what extent the bias goes.which side started this whole mess in recent times? to me it is obvious that the state of israel is the instigator of the entire conflict, how can it not be? it was created from land the palestinians lived on and continues to exert total control over the reguees.when u said u do not believe in violence, i do not believe in violence against innocents, not sure if that was your meaning. israel has killed BY FAR more innocent civilians than any palestinian faction/gov, etc. the emphasis and morality of situations like this rest with the superior fighting force; the ones who can, and do, control the situation from a deadly force point of view. i would be interested in hearing your arguments against this.

In response to the bolded part above:Your basically saying, more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed and this proves that Israel's response is worse than the Palestinian terrorism. Do you agree with that statement? (by the way, questions that start with "Do you" usually have a YES or NO answer )

[vbnautilus 48]

In response to the bolded part above:Your basically saying, more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed and this proves that Israel's response is worse than the Palestinian terrorism. Do you agree with that statement? (by the way, questions that start with "Do you" usually have a YES or NO answer )

Questions that specifically limit their answers to yes or no answer are typically trying to trap someone making a false choice. These questions usually have assumptions embedded within them that the respondent would have to implicitly concede to were he to answer simply yes or no. Thus, these rhetorical devices are not really questions after all.

[Balloon guy 158]

Questions that specifically limit their answers to yes or no answer are typically trying to trap someone making a false choice. These questions usually have assumptions embedded within them that the respondent would have to implicitly concede to were he to answer simply yes or no. Thus, these rhetorical devices are not really questions after all.

So you disapprove?[ ] Yes[ ] No[ ] wait..what?

[owise1 0]

QUOTE (All_In @ Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 6:36 PM) i know it is a great thing to believe that non-violence can solve major political disputes, india is usually cited as an example.for the most part violence is the currency that buys freedom in this world. the US formation is a perfect example (and anthem).i also do not soley read AJ. i read from cnn and fox (as well others). i try to gather news from a variety of sources. i believe that every news source has a certain bias, it boils down to what each of us thinks is 'just', and to what extent the bias goes.which side started this whole mess in recent times? to me it is obvious that the state of israel is the instigator of the entire conflict, how can it not be? it was created from land the palestinians lived on and continues to exert total control over the reguees.when u said u do not believe in violence, i do not believe in violence against innocents, not sure if that was your meaning. israel has killed BY FAR more innocent civilians than any palestinian faction/gov, etc. the emphasis and morality of situations like this rest with the superior fighting force; the ones who can, and do, control the situation from a deadly force point of view. i would be interested in hearing your arguments against this.

In response to the bolded part above:Your basically saying, more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed and this proves that Israel's response is worse than the Palestinian terrorism. Do you agree with that statement? (by the way, questions that start with "Do you" usually have a YES or NO answer )

(vbnautilus @ Saturday, August 15th, 2009, 10:57 AM) Questions that specifically limit their answers to yes or no answer are typically trying to trap someone making a false choice. These questions usually have assumptions embedded within them that the respondent would have to implicitly concede to were he to answer simply yes or no. Thus, these rhetorical devices are not really questions after all.

VB, Firstly, I simply wanted to know the point of the above bolded part of his statement? Secondly, I have some concerns with who does the counting and who determines whom is an innocent civilian? I will elaborate more after All_In has responded. VB, Can you speak Mandarin? What assumptions does this (yes or no) question have?

[vbnautilus 48]

VB, Can you speak Mandarin? What assumptions does this (yes or no) question have?

For one, that "ability" to speak is a binary state. Let's say we're in a courtroom and you are trying to determine whether I overheard a relevant conversation in Mandarin. In order to respond truthfully, I may need to explain that while I understand some Mandarin, the words being used in this conversation were not all within my vocabulary, so that my understanding was partial. To answer Yes or No would misleading. Second, that Mandarin is a single unitary language. ( In fact it is a collection of related dialects. ) In the same case I may need to explain that while I have experience with standard Mandarin, the conversation was taking place in Jiao-Liao Mandarin which is not mutually intelligible with standard Mandarin.

[owise1 0]

For one, that "ability" to speak is a binary state. Let's say we're in a courtroom and you are trying to determine whether I overheard a relevant conversation in Mandarin. In order to respond truthfully, I may need to explain that while I understand some Mandarin, the words being used in this conversation were not all within my vocabulary, so that my understanding was partial. To answer Yes or No would misleading. Second, that Mandarin is a single unitary language. ( In fact it is a collection of related dialects. ) In the same case I may need to explain that while I have experience with standard Mandarin, the conversation was taking place in Jiao-Liao Mandarin which is not mutually intelligible with standard Mandarin.

That was cute. I enjoyed it. A couple more questions. Are you pregnant? Do you live in the USA?

[BaseJester 1]

For one, that "ability" to speak is a binary state. Let's say we're in a courtroom and you are trying to determine whether I overheard a relevant conversation in Mandarin. In order to respond truthfully, I may need to explain that while I understand some Mandarin, the words being used in this conversation were not all within my vocabulary, so that my understanding was partial. To answer Yes or No would misleading. Second, that Mandarin is a single unitary language. ( In fact it is a collection of related dialects. ) In the same case I may need to explain that while I have experience with standard Mandarin, the conversation was taking place in Jiao-Liao Mandarin which is not mutually intelligible with standard Mandarin.

This is a very good post. It's making me think.

[All_In 0]

VB, Firstly, I simply wanted to know the point of the above bolded part of his statement?

finish reading that statement.

Secondly, I have some concerns with who does the counting and who determines whom is an innocent civilian? I will elaborate more after All_In has responded.

Like the UN?http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/detail/67863.html

[SlapStick 0]

So answer the question that you avoided. Do you consider the Israelis killed on public buses and at public markets by sucide bombers innocent?

[owise1 0]

(All_In @ Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 6:36 PM ... israel has killed BY FAR more innocent civilians than any palestinian faction/gov, etc. the emphasis and morality of situations like this rest with the superior fighting force; the ones who can, and do, control the situation from a deadly force point of view. i would be interested in hearing your arguments against this.

(owise1 @ Sunday, August 16th, 2009, 9:55 AM) VB, Firstly, I simply wanted to know the point of the above bolded part of his statement?

finish reading that statement.

I finished reading that statement, and I am really not sure what you mean. I interpreted what you wrote (as I stated above ) as, "more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed and this proves that Israel's response is worse than the Palestinian terrorism." If that is not the case, the please elaborate further. Secondly, as to the underlined part above, I am glad to hear of your interest in my arguments against this. I have many and would be happy to share them as soon as you clarify what you said above. Oh and VB, were you in Las Vegas yesterday?

[owise1 0]

(All_In @ Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 6:36 PM) i know it is a great thing to believe that non-violence can solve major political disputes, india is usually cited as an example.for the most part violence is the currency that buys freedom in this world. the US formation is a perfect example (and anthem).i also do not soley read AJ. i read from cnn and fox (as well others). i try to gather news from a variety of sources. i believe that every news source has a certain bias, it boils down to what each of us thinks is 'just', and to what extent the bias goes.which side started this whole mess in recent times? to me it is obvious that the state of israel is the instigator of the entire conflict, how can it not be? it was created from land the palestinians lived on and continues to exert total control over the reguees.when u said u do not believe in violence, i do not believe in violence against innocents, not sure if that was your meaning. israel has killed BY FAR more innocent civilians than any palestinian faction/gov, etc. the emphasis and morality of situations like this rest with the superior fighting force; the ones who can, and do, control the situation from a deadly force point of view. i would be interested in hearing your arguments against this.

Your talk about morality and whom it rests with reminded me of this article:Using Civilians As Weapons: The Lack Of Moral Clarity About HamasThe Miami HeraldJanuary 16, 2009Alan M. DershowitzThe war in Gaza is as pure a conflict between good and evil as I have experienced. An anti-Semitic terrorist group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and whose leaders incite genocide against the Jewish people are employing a new weapon in a cynical effort to obtain international support for their bigoted aims: their new weapon is the use of civilians as both targets and shields. The use of civilians as deliberate weapons of warfare is forbidden by international law, yet many in the international community—especially within the UN—are encouraging the use of this insidious weapon either by directly supporting the criminals who are employing it, or by declaring a moral equivalence between terrorists who deliberately target civilians and democracies that inadvertently kill civilians who were deliberately placed in harm's way by the terrorists. What Hamas is doing should be evident to anyone with an objective eye and common sense. They are provoking Israel to take military action against those terrorists who are raining deadly rockets at a million Israeli civilians and playing Russian roulette with the lives of Israeli children. They know that any democracy in the world would have to respond militarily to these armed attacks against its civilians. Because Hamas deliberately fires its rockets from densely populated areas—including from schools, mosques and private homes—they knew that any Israeli military action will cause Palestinian civilian casualties. For Hamas this creates a win-win situation: if Israel does nothing and allows the rockets to continue to be fired at Israeli civilians, Hamas wins. It's only a matter of time and luck before a Hamas rocket hits a school filled with children and Hamas celebrates its success. If, on the other hand, Israel takes military action to stop the rockets, they are sure to kill some Palestinian children. Hamas had made sure of that by firing its rockets from areas where children are going to be in proximity to Israeli military actions. Hamas stands ready to exploit every civilian death by having its video cameras and reporters ready to record and transmit emotional images of every dead Palestinian child or woman. Well not quite every image: when a Hamas rocket misfired and killed two Palestinian children, Hamas banned any pictures of those victims. It is almost as if Hamas were literally loading Palestinian children into cannons, attaching explosives to their bodies, and firing them as ammunition at Israeli civilians. Wait! Hamas has actually done just that. They have sent children unknowingly carrying explosives into Israel intending to detonate them as human bombs by remote control. They have recruited 13 and 14 year old boys as well as pregnant women as suicide bombers.What is required in the face of such unmitigated evil is moral clarity and it is precisely that clarity that is missing from the current debate. It is imperative that President elect Obama and his foreign policy team bring a sense of moral clarity to this conflict if they are to have any chance of resolving it in a just and enduring manner. As an aid to moral clarity, consider the following three analogous situations. An armed bank robber kills several tellers and takes a customer hostage; hiding behind his human shield the robber continues to kill civilians; a police officer, trying to prevent further killings, shoots at the murderer but accidentally kills the hostage. Who is guilty of murder? Not the policeman who fired the fatal shot but the bank robber who fired from behind the human shield. The international law of war, likewise, makes it a war crime to use human shields in the way Hamas does. It also makes it a war crime for Hamas to target Israeli civilians with anti-personnel rockets loaded with ball bearings and shrapnel designed to kill as many civilians as possible. A second analogy, closer to the Gaza situation, is to other nations that have been attacked by rockets. When German rockets targeted British cities, Churchill responded by carpet bombing German cities. The United States responded similarly to the attack on Pearl Harbor. When terrorists attacked us on 9/11, we sent troops to Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda. These counterattacks caused many more civilian casualties than have occurred in Gaza.Finally, ask yourself, as Barack Obama asked himself when he visited Sderot and saw the rockets that had plagued that city for years, "What would you do?" as President-elect.Obama responded: Whatever it takes to protect our children.I recently saw a cartoon which brilliantly encapsulated the situation. It showed an Israeli soldier and a Hamas terrorist shooting at each other. The Israeli soldier was standing in front of a baby carriage, protecting the baby. The Hamas terrorist was firing from behind a baby carriage, using the baby as a shield. Sometimes it takes a cartoon to illustrate moral clarity

[Balloon guy 158]

Your talk about morality and whom it rests with reminded me of this article:Using Civilians As Weapons: The Lack Of Moral Clarity About HamasThe Miami HeraldJanuary 16, 2009Alan M. DershowitzThe war in Gaza is as pure a conflict between good and evil as I have experienced. An anti-Semitic terrorist group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and whose leaders incite genocide against the Jewish people are employing a new weapon in a cynical effort to obtain international support for their bigoted aims: their new weapon is the use of civilians as both targets and shields. The use of civilians as deliberate weapons of warfare is forbidden by international law, yet many in the international community—especially within the UN—are encouraging the use of this insidious weapon either by directly supporting the criminals who are employing it, or by declaring a moral equivalence between terrorists who deliberately target civilians and democracies that inadvertently kill civilians who were deliberately placed in harm's way by the terrorists. What Hamas is doing should be evident to anyone with an objective eye and common sense. They are provoking Israel to take military action against those terrorists who are raining deadly rockets at a million Israeli civilians and playing Russian roulette with the lives of Israeli children. They know that any democracy in the world would have to respond militarily to these armed attacks against its civilians. Because Hamas deliberately fires its rockets from densely populated areas—including from schools, mosques and private homes—they knew that any Israeli military action will cause Palestinian civilian casualties. For Hamas this creates a win-win situation: if Israel does nothing and allows the rockets to continue to be fired at Israeli civilians, Hamas wins. It's only a matter of time and luck before a Hamas rocket hits a school filled with children and Hamas celebrates its success. If, on the other hand, Israel takes military action to stop the rockets, they are sure to kill some Palestinian children. Hamas had made sure of that by firing its rockets from areas where children are going to be in proximity to Israeli military actions. Hamas stands ready to exploit every civilian death by having its video cameras and reporters ready to record and transmit emotional images of every dead Palestinian child or woman. Well not quite every image: when a Hamas rocket misfired and killed two Palestinian children, Hamas banned any pictures of those victims. It is almost as if Hamas were literally loading Palestinian children into cannons, attaching explosives to their bodies, and firing them as ammunition at Israeli civilians. Wait! Hamas has actually done just that. They have sent children unknowingly carrying explosives into Israel intending to detonate them as human bombs by remote control. They have recruited 13 and 14 year old boys as well as pregnant women as suicide bombers.What is required in the face of such unmitigated evil is moral clarity and it is precisely that clarity that is missing from the current debate. It is imperative that President elect Obama and his foreign policy team bring a sense of moral clarity to this conflict if they are to have any chance of resolving it in a just and enduring manner. As an aid to moral clarity, consider the following three analogous situations. An armed bank robber kills several tellers and takes a customer hostage; hiding behind his human shield the robber continues to kill civilians; a police officer, trying to prevent further killings, shoots at the murderer but accidentally kills the hostage. Who is guilty of murder? Not the policeman who fired the fatal shot but the bank robber who fired from behind the human shield. The international law of war, likewise, makes it a war crime to use human shields in the way Hamas does. It also makes it a war crime for Hamas to target Israeli civilians with anti-personnel rockets loaded with ball bearings and shrapnel designed to kill as many civilians as possible. A second analogy, closer to the Gaza situation, is to other nations that have been attacked by rockets. When German rockets targeted British cities, Churchill responded by carpet bombing German cities. The United States responded similarly to the attack on Pearl Harbor. When terrorists attacked us on 9/11, we sent troops to Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and Al Qaeda. These counterattacks caused many more civilian casualties than have occurred in Gaza.Finally, ask yourself, as Barack Obama asked himself when he visited Sderot and saw the rockets that had plagued that city for years, "What would you do?" as President-elect.Obama responded: Whatever it takes to protect our children.I recently saw a cartoon which brilliantly encapsulated the situation. It showed an Israeli soldier and a Hamas terrorist shooting at each other. The Israeli soldier was standing in front of a baby carriage, protecting the baby. The Hamas terrorist was firing from behind a baby carriage, using the baby as a shield. Sometimes it takes a cartoon to illustrate moral clarity

Too bad Dershowitz sold his lawyer soul to get OJ off, he's a pretty sharp guy.

[vbnautilus 48]

Oh and VB, were you in Las Vegas yesterday?

Nope. Why?No one ever said a Yes or No was always an inappropriate response. The point is that you cannot constrain the other person in a discussion to answer a question according to what you think the only answers are.

[owise1 0]

Nope. Why?

Sometimes the answers are simply YES or NO and that is it. There are no constraints being put on by myself or anyone else. In fact, I would welcome a long, carefully thought out answer supporting one's position. (Yes, here is why...) When I asked the question above, i was simply trying to clarify what All_in meant when he wrote,

All_In @Monday, August 3rd, 2009, 6:36 PM ...israel has killed BY FAR more innocent civilians than any palestinian faction/gov, etc. the emphasis and morality of situations like this rest with the superior fighting force; the ones who can, and do, control the situation from a deadly force point of view. i would be interested in hearing your arguments against this.