We're not talking about 'the war' enough

[PhoneLobster]

The goal is simple.

Intimidate and remove all international observers.

That is why both the UN and the Red Cross are targets.

And.

2) Artillery where the equipment is shelling via coordinates given to them, not a LOS.

They had the coordinates of all the UN outposts.

They had the coordinates of that outpost for decades.

The main thing the UN does when "working with the Israelis" to prevent this kind of thing is inform them of you know, minor details, like exact location.

After being told all day to stop the heavy direct shelling of that location they blew it up with a guided missile.

The UN themselves are calling this deliberate. You don't get a cautious organization like that saying that kind of thing if there was a jot of doubt, and there is not.

[power_word_wedgie]

The problem is that the intimidation was never going to work with this scenario. If you are trying to be intimidating, you're shelling around the UN posts, not hitting them directly. When you shell it directly, you kill people from UN countries which was never going to be allowed in the first place. There's no way that Israel was going to get away "scott free." (ie. not taking the blame and thus the political heat for killing UN soldiers) There's no reason why Israel was going to take an action that was going to definitely result in their Prime Minister having to apologize and express regret for later. It get's the government nowhere politically, either globally or within Israel.

As for the coordinates, I'm sure someone in Israel knew the UN coordinates, but the question is whether those individuals were there in planes and artillery ranges to remind the units not to use those coordinates. And as the UN post admitted, there were Hizbollah guerrilas around the area. Thus, it is very conceivable that in their zest to taking out the guerillas that they accidentally took out the UN post.

It reminds me of an videotape with audio during the first Iraq war in the 1990's. It had an US Apache helicopter tracking down a tank, blowing it sky high, the tape had audio of the crewmembers in the helicopter cheering for the direct strike, only to be followed up with them slowly realizing that they took out a US Bradley vehicle and solemn silence. Combat gets messy, and mistakes get made.

[PhoneLobster]

Mistakes get made, primarily by the notoriously trigger happy and clumsy American military but also by others.

But this was not a mistake. Plain and simple.

Do you honestly believe that "someone" had the coordinates and that "someone" was just conveniently NOT the one group of people who actually needed to know them?

The people who attack various coordinates were the one group who didn't get told the various coordinates NOT TO ATTACK.

The "but they aimed at Hezbollah and Missed" story is a bunch of shit.

They were bombing the outpost itself all day and every channel the UN had was used to try and make them stop then they called in a fvcking airstrike.

That chain of events leaves NO room for comprimise. The only way the army could not have known is if it was willfully intended not to know. The old "blow this location up and don't look too hard" routine.

The same as the only way you can't know is because you willfully intend not to. The very same stupid "but they wouldn't have wanted the backlash" excuse you are using is the VERY excuse they intended to use and actually have used.

I prefer excuses based around facts rather than an assumption that a pack people who constantly get away with murder wouldn't have thought they could yet again get away with murder.

So enough conjecture on what you think they thought they couldn't get away with, just look at the facts they killed those men while they were on the fvcking phone begging Israel for mercy.

And now for story time.

If Dick Cheney is throwing grenades at you all day and you keep telling him to quit it while flashing your UN credentials then he walks up and shoots you in the head with a shot gun it was NOT AN ACCIDENT even if you were standing next to a senate democrat.

And if in that same scenario the Democrats are collectively responsible (and therefore must die) for Al Sharpton shooting a fire cracker into the republican convention then GW is definitely responsible for his vice president DELIBERATELY shooting you in the face.

[power_word_wedgie]

The same as the only way you can't know is because you willfully intend not to. The very same stupid "but they wouldn't have wanted the backlash" excuse you are using is the VERY excuse they intended to use and actually have used.

So Israel always wanted backlash and thus more heat for the attack from the international community and thus decided to conduct the shelling? That makes no sense.

I prefer excuses based around facts rather than an assumption that a pack people who constantly get away with murder wouldn't have thought they could yet again get away with murder.

Actually, they do exactly this for murder. It's called motive. They rationalize whether an act that is being done makes sense. (Actually, there is a "innocent until proven guilty" argument, but that's something else ...)

If Dick Cheney is throwing grenades at you all day and you keep telling him to quit it while flashing your UN credentials then he walks up and shoots you in the head with a shot gun it was NOT AN ACCIDENT even if you were standing next to a senate democrat.

And if in that same scenario the Democrats are collectively responsible (and therefore must die) for Al Sharpton shooting a fire cracker into the republican convention then GW is definitely responsible for his vice president DELIBERATELY shooting you in the face.

The thing is that with the above scenario, it assumes that the people who are doing the shooting have the news. That's the point - there hasn't been anything that came out where the fighter pilots that dropped the bombs knew or whether the specific artillery units knew the coordinates were UN. Yeah, military and diplomat were being told, but that doesn't mean that the frontline units were told that the coordinates were UN.

No one is saying that no one in Israel knew. However, we don't know whether (a) senior military did some investigation and thought the claims were unwarranted, (b) whether they were going through regular military channels (that could take forever at times) and order to stop shelling never got to the units, or a myriad of other reasons. Yes, an option is intentional shelling for a direct hit, but out of all of the options it makes the least sense. And it is also still just speculation, just like ones I have been mentioning - hence the reason why I've been using the, "Does it make sense" argument for a litmus test. (Unless someone can provide hard evidence (ie. direct orders from Israeli military to "take out the UN outposts") - then that changes everything)

[PhoneLobster]

So Israel always wanted backlash and thus more heat for the attack from the international community and thus decided to conduct the shelling? That makes no sense.

No it makes no sense, which is probably why YOU said it.

I pointed out they would trundle out the usual "oops it was an accident we would never do something as mean as that deliberately" excuse.

While all the time they have a longstanding history of doing exactly this sort of shit.

What you are doing is looking me square in the face and saying in all honesty that you believe the serial killer didn't kill your mother despite the fact that we all know he is a serial killer and is standing over her corpse with the bloody knife in his hands.

After all he wouldn't go doing something like that and if he did golly he wouldn't go getting caught with the knife in his hand would he. He MUST be innocent.

Actually, they do exactly this for murder. It's called motive.

I gave you the motive. Israel wants all international presence GONE. They hate them, they hate the UN they have a long history of hating supervision, accountability and the UN. They have been in direct defiance of the UN on a number of fronts for well, most of their history really.

I'll try this more simply.

Israel = Rogue State = Enemy of UN

The next target may well be the other sort of international oversight they can't stand, journalists.

The thing is that with the above scenario, it assumes that the people who are doing the shooting have the news.

Of course it fvcking does.

The UN says don't shoot our people here here and here.

So in order not to shoot them then Israel has to actually tell the people who do the shooting. Not doing that is itself a crime.

The UN says please STOP shooting our people.

So in order to stop it you then tell the people doing the shooting to stop. Not doing that is also a crime, droping a laser guided missile on the same site is MORE of a crime.

For your ridiculous scenario of innocence through ignorance to play through it has to go like this.

For the last several decades the entire Israeli government and military has known about the site. But somehow they lose the information or fail to distribute it.

The war starts the UN contacts everyone its supposed to and reminds Israel all about the site. But somehow the Israeli goverment and military commanders don't actually bother telling anyone.

The Israeli artillery just you know, decide to start shelling that big fvcking blue and white building with UN painted on top.

The UN tells every Israeli contact they can find to quit it.

But somehow the Israelis don't bother telling the artillery to stop.

Instead someone, somewhere, tells a jet to drop an airstrike on it.

By accident.

My ass.

[Crissa]

The shelling was done via artillary; the bombing was done by laser guided munitions.

And how is ABC refuting me pointing out that Democrats refused to listen to his speach until he retracted/denied startements in support of the violence?

Lastly - Administration in bed with Zionist nutsos. Where's the US's position for a cease-fire now that they're shooting UN (which has no anti-air, anti-tank, weapons) outposts?

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

1154066559[/unixtime]]And how is ABC refuting me pointing out that Democrats refused to listen to his speach until he retracted/denied startements in support of the violence?

Because that's not what the al-Maliki was saying. Actually al-Maliki has been saying that he supports ending the violence quickly.

Ok, using the >Fox News article< here, let's see the comments made by al-Maliki that precipitated the Democrat's response:

"The Israeli attacks and airstrikes are completely destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure,” al-Maliki is quoted in the paper as saying last Wednesday during a news conference in Baghdad. “I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers’ meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression.”

So, al-Maliki is saying that the conflict should be addressed by addressing the Israelis. It makes sense because al-Maliki is a Shiite Muslim, and for the most part Hizbollah is a Shiite Muslim organization supported by Iran.

Now enters the Democrat's response, first from Pelosi from the ABC News article that I referenced in my original post:

Unless Mr. Maliki disavows his critical comments of Israel and condemns terrorism, it is inappropriate to honor him with a joint meeting of Congress

Now, let's hear from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. via the Fox News article:

Maliki did not denounce Hezbollah, a terrorist organization or repudiate amnesty for Iraqis who killed Americans soldiers. Therefore, I won't be attending

Thus, he's not attending due to the violence - he's not attending because al-Maliki won't renounce Hezbollah. Now, let's hear from Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill via the Fox News article:

But Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., speaking after the address, said he asked al-Maliki directly if he believes Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and the prime minister wouldn't respond, and furthermore, questioned Durbin's right to ask him the question.

"I said, you raised criticism of Israel in this conflict, I think it is logical, it is reasonable to ask him what is your impression of their enemy in this struggle, Hezbollah. He still refused to reply to that," Durbin said.

Durbin also brought up comments by Iraqi Parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who was quoted last week saying that Jews are to blame for all of Iraq's problems.

Durbin said Mashhadani said "outrageous things, not only about Israel and Jewish people, but even about America.

"To have a leader in the government so critical of the United States, which has given so much in defense of democracy in Iraq, is troubling," he added

So, the Democrats don't have a problem with al-Maliki supporting violence. The Democrat's problem with what al-Maliki is saying is that he's saying Israel should have actions taken against it and can't get al-Maliki to proclaim Hizbollah is a terrorist organization, and the Democrats don't like that. (Well, the Republicans don't like it either, but both parties are acting in unison on this one)

[Josh_Kablack]

1154044371[/unixtime]]

They had the coordinates of all the UN outposts.

They had the coordinates of that outpost for decades.

The main thing the UN does when "working with the Israelis" to prevent this kind of thing is inform them of you know, minor details, like exact location.

After being told all day to stop the heavy direct shelling of that location they blew it up with a guided missile.

The UN themselves are calling this deliberate. You don't get a cautious organization like that saying that kind of thing if there was a jot of doubt, and there is not.

A dead Canadian has something to say about that

[Crissa]

...Could you quote Democrats, perhaps, from a source at least owned by a Democrat or non-profit, please?

'Cause you're mixing your quotes.

I know it's deliberate, yes, but...

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

A dead Canadian has something to say about that.

Have you read the second page of that?

The UN official quoted sums it up pretty clearly.

What he doesn't add is the "we were shooting at Hezbollah and missed" is no excuse. The UN told them they were hitting the UN outpost, and told them to stop and instead they blew it to smithereens

There is no excuse for that. NONE.

Dick Cheney shoots a gun at you. "I'm not a game bird Dick"

He says "But theres one right near you", he then shoots again.

"Stop it Dick if you don't you'll shoot me".

Dick shoots you in the face.

No. Excuse. At. All.

[Josh_Kablack]

1154171943[/unixtime]]

There is no excuse for that. NONE.

There totally is, and it's called war.

Now if you want to debate whether there's ever and excuse for war, or how this particular situation isn't one, I'm right there with you. But please don't pretend that you're ignorant of the messy and chaotic nature of wartime violence.

I'll come right out and admit that it's possible, heck even likely that Israel was intentionally targeting the UN position. After all they've said publicly that they felt UNIFIL wasn't fulfulling its peacekeeping mandate, and some Israelis have implied that UNIFIL was intentionally aiding Hezbollah. Odds are pretty good that the particular Israelis responsible for the shelling and bombing shared those thoughts and that opinion played a role in preventing the phone calls from accomplishing anything.

But I'd like you to consider that it's entirely likely the outnumbered and outgunned Hezbollah has adopted the tactic of operating very nearby UN outposts and other targets which they feel Israel will be reluctant to shell. Now we only have one rather dubious source saying that such was the case in this particular incident, but that's enough for me to allow at least the possibility that the Israelis made a honest, if horrible mistake in their execution of this war.

But then again, I seem to be one of two people on this thread who are of the opinion that Israel has a right to exist, so I'm probably horribly biased due to all that right-wing propaganda I read.

[Username17]

But then again, I seem to be one of two people on this thread who are of the opinion that Israel has a right to exist,

Of course, because that's a bullshit argument that I'm not even going to have.

First of all, nations don't have "a right to exist". They don't even exist, nor do they have rights. People have a right to live in whatever part of the world they happen to live in. That's because people exist. And they have rights.

But that goes for Israelis and Palestinians, because they are both people. And honestly, the Israelis have been way more concentrated about gewnocide than the Arabs could ever hope to be. They have more land grabs, broken promises, and civilian bombings on their hands than anyone since Andrew Jackson, so even mentioning the rights of humans to exist simply reminds us what a horrible and iligitimate country "Israel" really is.

But more importantly, who gives a rats ass? Whether or not a nation exists actually has nothing whatever to do with bulldozing civilian farmland, shelling the United Nations, or bulldozing residential neighborhoods and schools. Really, it doesn't. The vast majority of nations manage to countinue their paper existence just fine without conducting any wars against the people living within their proscribed borders.

--

The existence or not of Israel is a deliberate smoke screen set up by militant zionists who want to cover up their own genocide, and I absolutely refuse to take that argument seriously.

so I'm probably horribly biased due to all that right-wing propaganda I read.

Exactly. If you can stomach enough bullshit that you can actually have the existence of Israel as a fvcking talking point in your mouth - you've been eating too much right-wing bullshit for me.

It's a talking point devised by propagandists for a brutal and pointless murder machine who gets funding from the United States under the explicit hope that they will destroy the entire planet. They are the villains from Star Wars and Captain Planet at the same time.

And you have their shit in your mouth. Is that obscene enough for you? It's obscene enough for me.

[fbmf]

[TGFBS]
At least maintain the illusion of civility, please!
[/TGFBS]

[Josh_Kablack]

No, really it's alright.

But as to that illusion of civility, lemme see if I can lay out my opinions about some of the arguments made in this thread clearly:

Contention #1: Israel was founded by religious fanatics on a bedrock of Nazi money, initimidation and bloodshed.

My response, Yeah, So? Aside from the Nazis being the specific funders, there's nothing there that cannot be claimed about any country, and you could replace the Nazis with other reprehensible groups for nearly all of them.

Contention #2: Israel is brutally killing people for no reason in the current crisis.

My response: Yeah, they are. And in doing so, they're being pretty stupid and it's going to backfire in the long run. But they don't feel that it's for no reason, so it's not for "no reason", it's just for "no GOOD reason".

Contention #3: Israel is pure evil zionist imperialism bent on total world domination.

My response: If you seriously beleive that's the truth and not an exaggeration for propaganda purposes, you are flat-out crazy. Or in the interest of that illusion of civility, let me rephrase that as "we do not have a common frame of reference from which to establish a meaningful dialogue"

Contention #4: The US should reduce or eliminate its support of Israel

My response: Hell yes! Not only would this look good in the eyes of the world and releive us of the logical contortions needed to justify supporting a theocracy in the interests democracy, but maybe the foreign aid we'd save could get my tax burden as a member of the working poor down under 30%. That would be a lot fucking nicer than subsidizing the jerks who spit on my mother's rabbi at the Wailing Wall.

[Draco_Argentum]

#1 Agree with Josh. The entire new world was founded on killing the natives and taking their land. The only difference is that theres still some people with blood on their hands alive in Israel's case.

#2 Although Josh is right in that they have their reasons so does anyone who kills someone so I don't think its that important of a point.

#3 I'd be willing to characterise the Israeli government as evil. Not so much on the world domination, their ambitions seem to be focused on the middle east.

#4 With ya there.

[power_word_wedgie]

1154163741[/unixtime]]...Could you quote Democrats, perhaps, from a source at least owned by a Democrat or non-profit, please?

Ok, in the spirit of trying to find information on al-Maliki on the sources provided, I looked at the Democrats website and NPR. What I was able to find was:

<NPR Story>

Many congressional leaders -- particularly Democrats -- had criticized the Iraqi leader for failing to condemn the Hezbollah militants currently battling Israeli forces.

S at least NOR is noting that the Democrats response is not because of al-Maliki supporting the war but because he's not willing to condemn Hizbollah.

Then, in my search of more links, I found <This Yahoo Story>. I guess we can add Sen. Kerry to those supporting Israel.

Democrats criticized al-Maliki's comments. "Prime Minister Maliki missed an important opportunity to state his position on Hezbollah, and instead left the impression that he does not oppose this terrorist organization's outrageous attacks on Israel," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Kerry called on Maliki to strongly condemn the use of terror anywhere — including by Hezbollah against Israel — in his speech to Congress on Thursday.

Also, the Yahoo article requoted the al-Maliki comment as well.

Here is an MSNBC article. MSNBC is not one to really want to play out of the Republican playbook.

The two leaders disagreed openly on how to end hostilities between the Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon and Israel, with al-Maliki, a Shiite Muslim leader, reiterating his support for an immediate cease-fire and Bush sticking by the administration opposition to one.

A group of House Democrats called on GOP leaders to cancel al-Maliki’s address to Congress on Thursday. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he doubted he would attend and that there were a “large number of people (in Congress) who were uncomfortable” with al-Maliki’s condemnation of Israel’s attacks in Lebanon and apparent support for Hezbollah

>Here< is a CBS quote on the topic. Basically it is the same as the one above since it was gained from AP.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've been able to find numerous quotes from various sources stating Democrat's response to al-Maliki was based on (a) not condemning Hizbollah and/or (b) critizing Israel. Thus, I ask, can you find an article or quote from a Democrat that said that they did not meet with al-Maliki because he supports the confict? I really ask it in earnest because in my search I wasn't able to find one - not saying that it isn't out there, just that I couldn't find it. I wouldn't mind reading it if you can.

Finally, I wasn't able to find much from the Democrat's website or NPR. I'm thinking that this really goes into your question to why Democrat's reaction to the Israeli conflict isn't being reported. It ha to do with the theory of a cameraman not wanting to take a picture of Superman using the bathroom. Reporters have this idealic notion of what their favorite politicians are, and when they gao against that notion, they feel really insecure to show the warts and all.

'Cause you're mixing your quotes.

I know it's deliberate, yes, but...

I'll freely admit to it in my previous quote. The problem is that I can't find an article that covers the entire situation with all of the quotes to this situation. Thus, I did mix them to help (a) start with the reason for the quotes (al-Maliki's response) and (b) the Democrat's response to al-Maliki. Thus, I apologize if there was any manipulation of the meaning of the quotes. If you think that there was, I wouldn't mind hearing what your translation of the quotes provided from my previous post was.

[Crissa]

Of course your partisan news sources don't cover the opposing party well.

At least you noticed that.

Democrats walk a tight line betwen being against genocide, war, and violence - and supporting the right for Jews to live in Palestine and Israel.

Republican have no such fine line, and get money from the companies which make money on both sides of the fence.

The problem with 'Israel's right to exist' is that it intentionally limits the number of Arabs who are citizens, compared to the number of orthodox Jews. Basically, they've created a situation where a democracy is built upon only half the available voting base.

Countries don't have a right to exist - people have a right to exist. Israel isn't a people, Remember that.

-Crissa

[power_word_wedgie]

1154235572[/unixtime]]Of course your partisan news sources don't cover the opposing party well.

At least you noticed that.

Democrats walk a tight line betwen being against genocide, war, and violence - and supporting the right for Jews to live in Palestine and Israel.

Republican have no such fine line, and get money from the companies which make money on both sides of the fence.

The problem with 'Israel's right to exist' is that it intentionally limits the number of Arabs who are citizens, compared to the number of orthodox Jews. Basically, they've created a situation where a democracy is built upon only half the available voting base.

Countries don't have a right to exist - people have a right to exist. Israel isn't a people, Remember that.

-Crissa

Ok, that's fine and dandy, but where are the new sources showing that the Democrats were threatening to not go to al-Maliki's speech due to that he was for Genocide, war, and violence? From the articles that I have read and the quotes from the Democrats in power, there's nothing stating that this is the case - they didn't go because he was critical of Israel and that he wouldn't renounce Hizbollah. Frankly, I never considered MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, and NBC to be a conservative lapdogs. If you can show me links to Democrats threatening to boycott al-Maliki's speech due to that al-Maliki wanted to extend the war and violence between Israel and Lebanon, I'd be more than happy to read it.

Ok, to take it one step further, since you agree that Democrats support the right for Jews to live in Palestine and Israel, does that mean that you also agree with Democrats when they say that Hizbollah should be considered terrorists due to their outrageous attacks on Israel?

Finally, though I do understand your point about allowing Palestinians the right to vote in Israel, can you provide a quote to any Democrat that is currently saying that during this Israel-Lebanese conflict?

I'll take it one step further: I understand what you are saying about perceived Democratic party ideals. However, can you provide any quotes from Democratic politicians to back up these ideals? If anything, for this Israel-Lebanese conflict, their quotes and actions (remember the 410-8 vote for supporting Israel in the House) is making them sound just like Republicans.

[Username17]

Josh, your list is a bunch of trivial hair splittings that don't mean anything.

Sure, everything happens for a reason. Ed Gein killed people for a reason. So whenever someone says that something is for "no reason" they don't mean that it is without first causes, they mean that it is inexcusable according to logical and civilized dictates. And that goes without saying.

Really, without saying. Which is ultimately the entire Israeli propaganda machine in action. They do horrible things to innocent people and when people call them on it they bring up such tirades as "Israel has a right to exist", or "Arabs killed some athletes in Munich over thirty years ago" or some other complete nonsense. And that's what it is. It's complete nonsense. Whenever they explain their reasoning they might as well be saying "Purple Alarmclocks peacefully sequester in a furious fashion." Sure, it's a legitimate sentence in English or Hebrew, it just doesn't convey meaning or excuse repeatedly and deliberately committing crimes against humanity.

Contention #3: Israel is pure evil zionist imperialism bent on total world domination.

My response: If you seriously beleive that's the truth and not an exaggeration for propaganda purposes, you are flat-out crazy. Or in the interest of that illusion of civility, let me rephrase that as "we do not have a common frame of reference from which to establish a meaningful dialogue"

That's a straw man.

Look, noone is saying that every Jew is evil, or that the zionist conspiracy controls Hollywood or any of that bullshit. I'm a Jew myself, I'm pretty sure I'm not part of the Jewish conspiracy to destroy peace in the Middle East.

But in Israel, the bad guys are in control. Kadima is the party that stands for committing genocide against Israel's neighbors and their own Arab civilian population. They call the shots, and so when you say "Israel This" or "Israel That" it's pretty excusable if this or that happens to include any of the many evil things that Kadima does.

And let's face it, there are no innocent Israeli civilians. There aren't even any civilians. This isn't one of those things like "If you aren't actively fighting genocide you're fvcking well guilty of it!" - that's a defensible argument (many Israelis make it, ironically enough) - but I don't have to make it here and I'm not going to.

No, Israel has a 100% draft for Jews. They are all members of the military. Every last Jew in Israel, man and woman alike, is forced to join the military command structure. And the top of the military command structure is a bunch of war criminals. The commander in chief is a murderer who can't travel much for fear of being brought before the Hague for Crimes Against Humanity.

So every last Israeli actually is part of the evil murder machine. It's really clever on the part of those genocidal fvcktards. They've forced everyone into being complicit in their institutionalized murder, and now guilt is to some degree distributed across the entire country. And the net result is that Palestinians and Lebanese really can just cut loose with rockets across town squares and bus stops and whatever else and have that be perfectly justifiable. Everyone is military, and everyone is guilty.

It was an experiment in silencing debate. Since everyone bears some responsibility for the atrocities, it's really hard for the people of Israel to get behind a truth and reconciliation commission. It's clever, it's evil, and the end result is that every last fvcking Israeli is a legitimate military target. Male and female, young and old, they are all legitimate military targets. Israelis standing in line to buy groceries are enemy combatants out of uniform (ask Gonzales how to treat those people). Israeli students are militants in training (heck, ask Israel what to do with those people).

---

No, they aren't all evil. No the "country" doesn't have any morals one way or the other because it's a ficticious construct.

But the heads of the genocidal factions really have engineered a method of distributing complicity across the entire population. And now, complicity has been distributed across the Jewish population. To a degree more so than Nazi Germany, Imperial Nippon, or Soviet Russia could possibly have ever dreamed of accomplishing - the statement that all Israelis are evil fvckers who are guilty of genocide is surprisingly accurate.

-Username17

[Maj]

Frank... May I quote you on another message board?

[Username17]

1154292363[/unixtime]]Frank... May I quote you on another message board?

Go for it.

-Username17

[User3]

1154289997[/unixtime]]
And let's face it, there are no innocent Israeli civilians. There aren't even any civilians. This isn't one of those things like "If you aren't actively fighting genocide you're fvcking well guilty of it!" - that's a defensible argument (many Israelis make it, ironically enough) - but I don't have to make it here and I'm not going to.

No, Israel has a 100% draft for Jews. They are all members of the military. Every last Jew in Israel, man and woman alike, is forced to join the military command structure.

That isn't entirely true. First of all, "arab Israelis" are citizens. Under-represented, second-class citizens, but citizens none the less.
Secondly, not all Jews are part of the military. I know a Jewish Israeli who probably would not have been allowed in the military due to his partially (something like 1/4) arabic heritage. Despite his Jewishness, the Israeli notion of racial purity would have excluded him from the system, and thereby made him mostly innocent.

So I'm not saying that, over all, you're wrong. Just that even among Israeli Jews who have reached the age of majority, there are still those innocent of war crimes.

Which is possibly worse than what you said, because it shows that even the idea of 'Israel as a bastion for all those of the Jewish faith' is a fiction.

[Username17]

Last I checked, Israel gave out deferments to 20.1 percent of the Israeli Jews, and thus some random kid on the street had a 79.9 percent chance of growing up to fire a rifle on behalf of the oppressors. Women got twice as many deferments as men, so approximately 86.6 percent of Jewish boys are going to end up as spear catchers for the genocidaires.

On the other hand, consider the 14 percent wash-out rate for the United States Maine Corp Boot Camp. Which means that people who have actually signed up with the United States Marines, picked up a gun, and put on the uniform - have only an 86 percent chance of actually becoming potential combatants.

I don't think that anyone here would doubt the wartime legality of shooting US Marines in boot camp if you were at war with the US, so why does anyone doubt the validity of Israeli boys playing in the sandbox with their toy cars? They actually have a slightly higher chance of successfully becoming soldiers than the men in the US boot camp in full military uniform do.

Not a lot higher, in fact it's essentially the same number, statistically speaking. And that's the point. Israeli society is Boot Camp. Young boys are soldiers in training and they are valid targets.

---

And that's why Israelis are so willing to go along with the Israeli murder machine. At some level they understand that their own government has designated them as legitimate targets from the time they are able to tie their own shoes. So the society at large is willing to go along with any practice no matter how horrible so long as it promises to allow a winning outcome.

So long as the settlers and other extremists continue to push things into open warfare (which they promise to do continuously), there can be no peace. And as long as there is not peace, every Israeli is a valid target. And that means their only chance to live is superior force at arms.

Those fvckers have the entire Israeli Jewish population by the balls.

-Username17

[power_word_wedgie]

1154375496[/unixtime]]I don't think that anyone here would doubt the wartime legality of shooting US Marines in boot camp if you were at war with the US, so why does anyone doubt the validity of Israeli boys playing in the sandbox with their toy cars?

Three simple words - Selective Service Act. If you're between the ages of 18 to 35 and male in the US, you're basically military reserves. Heck, if you're younger than 18 in the US, you still need to bomb those kids because they're military reserves - once they become of age. And, to stretch it out further, we in the US haven't mastered the book "1984" reproduction scheme, so (TA-DAA!) women are the production line for making military reserves, and in some light they can be considered a military target. (Just like the line from "Two Minute to Midnight", we feed the war machine with our babies.) So, the analogy doesn't stop just at the Marines in boot camp.

[Username17]

Three simple words - Selective Service Act.

Three even simpler words: Point Four Percent.

That's the chance of a US citizen being active military. Now obviously, chances go way up for a citizen ever being active military, but the point remains. A boy in a sandbox in Israel has a better chance of completing Israeli basic training than a US Marine signing on the dotted line.

So if you think attacking people in training camps is OK under any circumstances, then shooting Jewish boys playing dodge ball is by deifnition acceptable.

-Username17