On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
What's the point of using an an abstract analogy, when what's happening is quite clear?
Try this one. We're both Americans. Let's say Mexico started firing rockets into Texas. Let's say that most of them land in empty fields, but 1) Every single time one is launched, you have to run into a bomb shelter, and stay there for 10 minutes 2) You have to spend millions and millions of dollars to stop the rockets that will be hitting populated areas 3) The occasional missile from Mexico causes damage or death
What do you think America should and would do? C'mon, I can't wait to hear how the fact that "But they usually miss" is relevant.
Also, for the love of god, please don't say something like "But Israel is occupying Gaza". If you want to have that discussion, fine. But your argument is "Since the rockets aren't killing people in Israel, Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself with its military." Defend that.
(Also I'm only starting off with the first half of your argument. We'll get to the part about "killing parents" if you can give me a coherent response to this)
This is fucking pointless. This can easily be flipped around and Americans would without a doubt be doing the exact same thing the Palestinians are doing. You know, liberty and free markets, second amendment and all that jazz.
...what? Flipped around to make Americans like the Palestinians? And what about liberty and such? A bit confused over here.
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
What's the point of using an an abstract analogy, when what's happening is quite clear?
Try this one. We're both Americans. Let's say Mexico started firing rockets into Texas. Let's say that most of them land in empty fields, but 1) Every single time one is launched, you have to run into a bomb shelter, and stay there for 10 minutes 2) You have to spend millions and millions of dollars to stop the rockets that will be hitting populated areas 3) The occasional missile from Mexico causes damage or death
What do you think America should and would do? C'mon, I can't wait to hear how the fact that "But they usually miss" is relevant.
Also, for the love of god, please don't say something like "But Israel is occupying Gaza". If you want to have that discussion, fine. But your argument is "Since the rockets aren't killing people in Israel, Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself with its military." Defend that.
(Also I'm only starting off with the first half of your argument. We'll get to the part about "killing parents" if you can give me a coherent response to this)
That's easy. The US would march into Mexico, kill the shit out of everything that moves, put in a puppet-government and be done with it.
Now the other way around. Do you think, the US would actually build a missile shield in the first place, just to retaliate every now and then?
Um...no, but I'm not sure if we're disagreeing about anything. I'd say Israel's missile defense system is a show of a crazy amount of restraint. Is that the point you were making?
Is making sure that the defense is set up first "restraint"? I disagree. The iron dome is necessary because of the neighbors as well, not just the hamas (even if they get iredicated somehow, israel still isn't out of the weeds). The US would not build the iron dome and retaliate, because they wouldn't want a century-long conflict. Which Israel is content with, as things seem right now.
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
Maybe if you change rocks with bullets you would get less biased
If I change the analogy of rocks to bullets, then I would have to change the analogy of my guns to rocket launchers. See the relative inequality of weapons that I am trying to point out?
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
What's the point of using an an abstract analogy, when what's happening is quite clear?
Try this one. We're both Americans. Let's say Mexico started firing rockets into Texas. Let's say that most of them land in empty fields, but 1) Every single time one is launched, you have to run into a bomb shelter, and stay there for 10 minutes 2) You have to spend millions and millions of dollars to stop the rockets that will be hitting populated areas 3) The occasional missile from Mexico causes damage or death
What do you think America should and would do? C'mon, I can't wait to hear how the fact that "But they usually miss" is relevant.
Also, for the love of god, please don't say something like "But Israel is occupying Gaza". If you want to have that discussion, fine. But your argument is "Since the rockets aren't killing people in Israel, Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself with its military." Defend that.
(Also I'm only starting off with the first half of your argument. We'll get to the part about "killing parents" if you can give me a coherent response to this)
That's easy. The US would march into Mexico, kill the shit out of everything that moves, put in a puppet-government and be done with it.
Now the other way around. Do you think, the US would actually build a missile shield in the first place, just to retaliate every now and then?
Um...no, but I'm not sure if we're disagreeing about anything. I'd say Israel's missile defense system is a show of a crazy amount of restraint. Is that the point you were making?
Is making sure that the defense is set up first "restraint"? I disagree. The iron dome is necessary because of the neighbors as well, not just the hamas (even if they get iredicated somehow, israel still isn't out of the weeds). The US would not build the iron dome and retaliate, because they wouldn't want a century-long conflict. Which Israel is content with, as things seem right now.
Well Israel is retaliating right now, aren't they?
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
What's the point of using an an abstract analogy, when what's happening is quite clear?
Try this one. We're both Americans. Let's say Mexico started firing rockets into Texas. Let's say that most of them land in empty fields, but 1) Every single time one is launched, you have to run into a bomb shelter, and stay there for 10 minutes 2) You have to spend millions and millions of dollars to stop the rockets that will be hitting populated areas 3) The occasional missile from Mexico causes damage or death
What do you think America should and would do? C'mon, I can't wait to hear how the fact that "But they usually miss" is relevant.
Also, for the love of god, please don't say something like "But Israel is occupying Gaza". If you want to have that discussion, fine. But your argument is "Since the rockets aren't killing people in Israel, Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself with its military." Defend that.
(Also I'm only starting off with the first half of your argument. We'll get to the part about "killing parents" if you can give me a coherent response to this)
That's easy. The US would march into Mexico, kill the shit out of everything that moves, put in a puppet-government and be done with it.
Now the other way around. Do you think, the US would actually build a missile shield in the first place, just to retaliate every now and then?
Um...no, but I'm not sure if we're disagreeing about anything. I'd say Israel's missile defense system is a show of a crazy amount of restraint. Is that the point you were making?
Is making sure that the defense is set up first "restraint"? I disagree. The iron dome is necessary because of the neighbors as well, not just the hamas (even if they get iredicated somehow, israel still isn't out of the weeds). The US would not build the iron dome and retaliate, because they wouldn't want a century-long conflict. Which Israel is content with, as things seem right now.
I agree that Israel may need the Iron Dome for the surrounding countries (though to the best of my knowledge, it has never been deployed on the Lebanese border). But I would say that Israel is not "content" with the status quo. If they had the option, they'd want to completely exterminate Hamas. And of course they have the military capabilities to do so. The issue is that they are unwilling (or the international community is unwilling to let them) carpet bomb Gaza. So they have to make do with this biennial ground incursion as their "best" option.
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
Maybe if you change rocks with bullets you would get less biased
If I change the analogy of rocks to bullets, then I would have to change the analogy of my guns to rocket launchers. See the relative inequality of weapons that I am trying to point out?
The "relative inequality" argument is nonsensical. Waiting for a response on my first post.
If you want to have an analogy that at least makes a little sense take Cuba and the United states(because these countries also have a history of economic sanctions, being ideologically opposed, and one country being a lot bigger).
Imagine Cuba shooting one hundred missiles a day at the US. What would the US do?Wait 15 years and build an Iron Dome? The US would beat the living shit out of Cuba on day 1, and rightly so. Everyone internationally would accept Cuba's actions as an act of war or terror, despite the fact that the US has sanctioned the country in the past. (Given the fact that Israel has been under attack repeatedly by the same actors for decades and that the Jews have a century long history of being discriminated and killed systematically, even this analogy doesn't really work. )
The difference is that when the country in question happens to be Israel some things change. If any other country produces civil casualties, that's all they are. It's sad that kids die in wars, but that's what happens. If a kid dies during a conflict involving Israel, Israel is a child killing murder state and every bullet fired is a war crime. The former terrorists aren't terrorists anymore, they're freedom fighters which we all need to have crazy amounts of empathy for, despite the fact that their weapons of choice have been suicide bombers and human shields.
(Given the fact that Israel has been under attack repeatedly by the same actors and that the Jews have a century long history of being discriminated and killed systematically, even this analogy doesn't really work. )
There it is. I was waiting for that, the dumbest justification of them all, and i'm not surprised that it came from you.
But I would say that Israel is not "content" with the status quo. If they had the option, they'd want to completely exterminate Hamas. And of course they have the military capabilities to do so. The issue is that they are unwilling (or the international community is unwilling to let them) carpet bomb Gaza.
Finally, someone with sense.
They have the option to completely annihilate the Hamas. And they should do it, i might add. That doesn't include to carpet bomb gaza though, that's just dumb. The US didn't carpetbomb afghanistan either to hunt down the talibans.
On July 24 2014 06:12 xM(Z wrote: Americans didn't built settlements in Cuba. Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE
The video is somewhat pointless. If I had a nickel for every time in the past 15 years a politician of a country said something damning, etc etc...
But the first point, about building settlements, is an issue I'm interested in discussing, because I feel it's a lot more murky than the disproportionate argument. Would you say that, if America built settlements in Cuba, Cuba would have the right to indiscriminately shoot rockets into America (honest question)? If not, what's the difference between the two scenarios?
Mmm yes, lets take Cuba and USA. If USA was building settlements and slowly reducing and dividing Cuban land, not to mention 70 years prior they invaded Cuban lands, claimed it as their own land for only their religion, excluding Cubans from citizenship from USA, with total and utterly one sided control of imports and exports (why would you decline imports of musical instruments and notebooks?) and pretend to hold out gestures for peace whilst never intending to honour the premise behind it, then you'll have some idea.
Someone asked why there was never such trouble with the Ottomans and the British. In both cases, they both pretty much left the area to govern itself near autonoumously, and in the British case, the faced terrorism from Zionist. Most importantly though, neither directly invaded and disposed of the people, they only disposed of the ruling elite/absorbed them.
On July 24 2014 06:08 Nyxisto wrote: If you want to have an analogy that at least makes a little sense take Cuba and the United states(because these countries also have a history of economic sanctions, being ideologically opposed, and one country being a lot bigger).
Imagine Cuba shooting one hundred missiles a day at the US. What would the US do?Wait 15 years and build an Iron Dome? The US would beat the living shit out of Cuba on day 1, and rightly so. Everyone internationally would accept Cuba's actions as an act of war or terror, despite the fact that the US has sanctioned the country in the past. (Given the fact that Israel has been under attack repeatedly by the same actors for decades and that the Jews have a century long history of being discriminated and killed systematically, even this analogy doesn't really work. )
The difference is that when the country in question happens to be Israel some things change. If any other country produces civil casualties, that's all they are. It's sad that kids die in wars, but that's what happens. If a kid dies during a conflict involving Israel, Israel is a child killing murder state and every bullet fired is a war crime. The former terrorists aren't terrorists anymore, they're freedom fighters which we all need to have crazy amounts of empathy for, despite the fact that their weapons of choice have been suicide bombers and human shields.
Because this is not a war. I wouldn't call it a genocide, but I would not call it a war either. A single Israeli civilian has died since the beginning of July. ONE ISRAELI CIVILIAN. Compared to 600 Palestinians. How is that a war? That's a massacre. inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
P.S I have no empathy for the terrorists, don't get me wrong. But that doesn't justify IDF forces DELIBERATELY targetting UN water-supply tanks (I will post pictures if you don't believe me), targetting red-cross ambulances (I will post pictures if I have to), and as well as targetting hospitals. Yes you can counter-argue that terrorists harbored missiles in hospitals, but THEN WHY THE FUCK BOMB THE TOP FLOORS OF HOSPITALS?! If anything the missiles are in the first floors.... and with such "surgical strikes" they should be able to at least target certain parts of a building. And don't get me started on the "tragic accident" of killing 4 children playing FOOTBALL....
Guys I've solved the whole Israel-Palestine conflict.
It's simple, just move Israel to the middle of Siberia where nobody else lives there, or they can have their statehood here in the American Midwest, hell there's not much here anyway.
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
What's the point of using an an abstract analogy, when what's happening is quite clear?
Try this one. We're both Americans. Let's say Mexico started firing rockets into Texas. Let's say that most of them land in empty fields, but 1) Every single time one is launched, you have to run into a bomb shelter, and stay there for 10 minutes 2) You have to spend millions and millions of dollars to stop the rockets that will be hitting populated areas 3) The occasional missile from Mexico causes damage or death
What do you think America should and would do? C'mon, I can't wait to hear how the fact that "But they usually miss" is relevant.
Also, for the love of god, please don't say something like "But Israel is occupying Gaza". If you want to have that discussion, fine. But your argument is "Since the rockets aren't killing people in Israel, Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself with its military." Defend that.
(Also I'm only starting off with the first half of your argument. We'll get to the part about "killing parents" if you can give me a coherent response to this)
This is fucking pointless. This can easily be flipped around and Americans would without a doubt be doing the exact same thing the Palestinians are doing. You know, liberty and free markets, second amendment and all that jazz.
...what? Flipped around to make Americans like the Palestinians? And what about liberty and such? A bit confused over here.
If Palestinians were replaced by Americans, there would still be the exact same amount of terrorism coming out of Palestine. If you take American christian conservative values and placed those into the modern context of Palestine, there would be no difference in the development of a terrorist state. Do you disagree?
-Take away American's guns -Take away their liberty - Take away their access to international trade - Slowly take away more of their land after a third party took a large chunk of it away - Kill large numbers of innocent americans by bombing cities
But the friendly occupiers give you - running water - electricity - food - Pamphlets telling you that your house will be destroyed regardless of whether or not you're in it.
On July 24 2014 06:22 ref4 wrote: Guys I've solved the whole Israel-Palestine conflict.
It's simple, just move Israel to the middle of Siberia where nobody else lives there, or they can have their statehood here in the American Midwest, hell there's not much here anyway.
2 problems with that.
1) They are both in miliarily strong countries in regions which are populated. Unsuprisingly, most countries don't like having bits carved out of them, and the original inhabitants of that specific region tend to dislike it and resist.
2) The idea of Isreal is from Zionism which isn't Isreal to be a homeland for Jews the people. It is meant to be the "original" homeland for Jews the religion.
has there been efforts of talks from israel to hamas during the quieter times? is hamas refusing any middle ground that leaves israel no choice or is israel not keeping up with peaceful and fair resolution that creates more frustration from hamas?
it seems there's a lot of conflict in israel settling into palestine's land and they're not happy with it. is this forced or something agreed upon?
what is the view from civilians in gaza? are they aware hamas is intentionally using them or do the majority hate israel? for example do they know israel gives them supplies? is the gaza media full of effective propaganda or do the gaza people realize how fucked up hamas is treating them?
On July 24 2014 06:12 xM(Z wrote: Americans didn't built settlements in Cuba. Israeli Minister "We always use the anti-Semitism trick or bring up the Holocaust" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW3a1bw5XlE
The video is somewhat pointless. If I had a nickel for every time in the past 15 years a politician of a country said something damning, etc etc...
But the first point, about building *illegal* settlements, is an issue I'm interested in discussing, because I feel it's a lot more murky than the disproportionate argument. Would you say that, if America built settlements in Cuba, Cuba would have the right to indiscriminately shoot rockets into America (honest question)? If not, what's the difference between the two scenarios?
i don't know man, i got a warning already in this thread for bringing up Godwin's Law but i'll give this a go. - it would depend on an assumed final goal on the part of Americans: if, as an ultimate goal, they'd have as target the total replacement of native Cubans with Americans (territorial annexation included here), then everything coming out of Cuba would be fair game but still, Cubans wouldn't be in the right; Americans would just be more wrong. - other talking points would include the manner in which is done, the amount of violence/oppression of the natives, the amount of racism/xenophobia/religious believes used as a tool to brainwash people and so on and so forth ... in any case, Americans should be subject to huge economical (but not only) sanctions. (*.* = added in)
On July 24 2014 06:08 Nyxisto wrote: If you want to have an analogy that at least makes a little sense take Cuba and the United states(because these countries also have a history of economic sanctions, being ideologically opposed, and one country being a lot bigger).
Imagine Cuba shooting one hundred missiles a day at the US. What would the US do?Wait 15 years and build an Iron Dome? The US would beat the living shit out of Cuba on day 1, and rightly so. Everyone internationally would accept Cuba's actions as an act of war or terror, despite the fact that the US has sanctioned the country in the past. (Given the fact that Israel has been under attack repeatedly by the same actors for decades and that the Jews have a century long history of being discriminated and killed systematically, even this analogy doesn't really work. )
The difference is that when the country in question happens to be Israel some things change. If any other country produces civil casualties, that's all they are. It's sad that kids die in wars, but that's what happens. If a kid dies during a conflict involving Israel, Israel is a child killing murder state and every bullet fired is a war crime. The former terrorists aren't terrorists anymore, they're freedom fighters which we all need to have crazy amounts of empathy for, despite the fact that their weapons of choice have been suicide bombers and human shields.
Because this is not a war. I wouldn't call it a genocide, but I would not call it a war either. A single Israeli civilian has died since the beginning of July. ONE ISRAELI CIVILIAN. Compared to 600 Palestinians. How is that a war? That's a massacre. inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
P.S I have no empathy for the terrorists, don't get me wrong. But that doesn't justify IDF forces DELIBERATELY targetting UN water-supply tanks (I will post pictures if you don't believe me), targetting red-cross ambulances (I will post pictures if I have to), and as well as targetting hospitals. Yes you can counter-argue that terrorists harbored missiles in hospitals, but THEN WHY THE FUCK BOMB THE TOP FLOORS OF HOSPITALS?! If anything the missiles are in the first floors.... and with such "surgical strikes" they should be able to at least target certain parts of a building. And don't get me started on the "tragic accident" of killing 4 children playing FOOTBALL....
Still waiting on a response to my first post! But as for these arguments:
inb4comments about how Israeli takes measures in defense and preparation against missile strikes which is why there are not many Israeli casualties.
Writing "inb4" doesn't mean that what follows is not a good argument. Yes, the reason why there are less Israeli deaths is because, exactly as you say, they have measures of defense and preparation. The issue isn't the number of deaths- the issue is the thousands of rockets fired into Israel, which Israel doesn't have to put up with.
And ya, I'd love to see proof of Israel deliberately targeting water tanks, never heard that claim before. The red cross ambulances one, like the argument about mosques and schools, is ridiculous, because it's been well documented that Hamas is willing to fire from them, so it's quite difficult to point to any one and say that that one's malicious.
Not sure where you're going with the hospital and beach examples. Let me phrase it this way: Why would Israel want to kill 4 boys on a beach, or hit a hospital? The answer, seemingly, is that they would not. It does no good for them to kill innocents, and if they really wanted to, they could carpet bomb the entire Gaza. So what are you proving by telling me that they killed the 4 boys? That they make mistakes? That they have bad intelligence? That they're not perfect? C'mon, follow through with your argument.
On July 24 2014 05:32 Days wrote: Guys. I have this bullet proof window at my house, and for the past 3 years little kids from my neighbor's house have been throwing rocks at my bullet proof window. Well i've had enough. Out of self defense, I am going to go and kill them with my US supplied weapons, which I have a lot of in my closet. It doesn't matter that my window is bullet proof and the rocks don't do anything, I still feel endangered that one of these rocks might break and cause damage. Also, the little kids are throwing rocks from their parent's bedroom, so it does place the blame on them when I go in and kill them and their parents happen to be in the room with them and get caught in the crossfire. But above all, remember I am doing this in self-defense. #israel #self-defense
User was warned for this post
What's the point of using an an abstract analogy, when what's happening is quite clear?
Try this one. We're both Americans. Let's say Mexico started firing rockets into Texas. Let's say that most of them land in empty fields, but 1) Every single time one is launched, you have to run into a bomb shelter, and stay there for 10 minutes 2) You have to spend millions and millions of dollars to stop the rockets that will be hitting populated areas 3) The occasional missile from Mexico causes damage or death
What do you think America should and would do? C'mon, I can't wait to hear how the fact that "But they usually miss" is relevant.
Also, for the love of god, please don't say something like "But Israel is occupying Gaza". If you want to have that discussion, fine. But your argument is "Since the rockets aren't killing people in Israel, Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself with its military." Defend that.
(Also I'm only starting off with the first half of your argument. We'll get to the part about "killing parents" if you can give me a coherent response to this)
This is fucking pointless. This can easily be flipped around and Americans would without a doubt be doing the exact same thing the Palestinians are doing. You know, liberty and free markets, second amendment and all that jazz.
...what? Flipped around to make Americans like the Palestinians? And what about liberty and such? A bit confused over here.
If Palestinians were replaced by Americans, there would still be the exact same amount of terrorism coming out of Palestine. If you take American christian conservative values and placed those into the modern context of Palestine, there would be no difference in the development of a terrorist state. Do you disagree?
-Take away American's guns -Take away their liberty - Take away their access to international trade - Slowly take away more of their land after a third party took a large chunk of it away - Kill large numbers of innocent americans by bombing cities
But the friendly occupiers give you - running water - electricity - food - Pamphlets telling you that your house will be destroyed regardless of whether or not you're in it.
Sigh...I specifically said I did not want to get into the issue of Israel's occupation of Gaza, because it's a completely separate argument, and it's impossible to get anywhere in arguments if we don't make sure to stay exactly on the same page.
I was responding to the argument that Israel's response is disproportionate. That has nothing to do with Israel being in Gaza- that's simply saying (as was explicitly said) "Well, since only one Israeli was killed, Israel doesn't have the right to respond with military force". If you want to continue that line of argument, please do, because I think that one is totally indefensible. On the other hand, if you want to have the argument about whether Israel's occupation justifies Hamas's indiscriminate shooting of rockets into civilian territory, then that one is more murky to me, and I'm curious what your response is.
EPT
