But somehow you see butchering old men praying and running over people at bus stops or blowing up tourists on beaches as justifiable homicide. Hmmm. I wonder why you have such different opinions in those cases?
Amnesty International - Gaza Strikes a war crime
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
You still have not shown where I said it was justifiable homicide. Do you work for Fox news? Do you think if you keep saying it enough people will believe it, even though all you have to do is show where I said it? Well I am not surprised, you have spread so many bald faced lies. I view the killings on both sides as equally criminal.But somehow you see butchering old men praying and running over people at bus stops or blowing up tourists on beaches as justifiable homicide. Hmmm. I wonder why you have such different opinions in those cases?
Except your quote where you referred to it as justifiable homicide you mean.You still have not shown where I said it was justifiable homicide. Do you work for Fox news? Do you think if you keep saying it enough people will believe it, even though all you have to do is show where I said it? Well I am not surprised, you have spread so many bald faced lies. I view the killings on both sides as equally criminal.
Except your quote where you referred to it as justifiable homicide you mean.
Nonsense, it is there for everyone to see. That is not what I said. Only a liar or moron would take it that way. Perhaps you need to go to remedial english class. I said it looked like a murder and said it was the same all the other murders. Just because I don't give a fuck about it does not mean I felt it was justified. I don't even know the full facts surrounding it to make a clear determination on if/what/why. What I DO know, is deporting the wife and child of the killer is a criminal and punitive act that would not be allowed in any country that is worth its salt, and that the deportation was a pure distilled act of blatant discrimination.
here are some population stats for Syria that show once again Basketcase is really BASKETFULLOFSHIT:Yet during the same period that population did not double in any other Arab country in the region.
I don't know who posted the numbers in that wiki but a council with 10 of the 12 seats being Arab doesn't add up to the 43% listed. All it shows is that the Arabs refused to consider any Jew their equal, the same as Hamas currently.
What you refuse to address is that the wealthy Arabs who owned the land were the ones selling their land. They are the ones who screwed over the tenant farmers, not the people who bought the land. It is known that the wealthy Arabs took advantage of changes to Ottoman property laws to become the owners but once again, that is a problem with the wealth Arabs, not the Jews who later bought that land.
You think that should apply to you?
And I notice that you refuse to address your major hypocrisy. How is it okay that Arabs react to being attacked with violence against civilians but not for Jews who were being attacked for decades longer?
http://www.populstat.info/Asia/syriac.htm
The wealthy arabs who sold the land, scum of the earth, but the Jews were equally culpable. You don't think they bought the land without seeing it do you? Like I said, the same.
As for the council, the Arabs refused to agree to the appointees because the British had already struck 2 blows against them. Firstly through Sykes Picote and then with the Balfour declaration. You fail to address how you expect the Arabs to place any trust in either the Jews or British in light of these two events. After the land sales caused an explosion of violence as the arabs fought for their lives, the British actually had to put them to a stop.
Maybe you are finally starting to see though all that Jewish propaganda and realize that Arab violence is really an act of desperation.
Your arguments keep getting weaker.The wealthy arabs who sold the land, scum of the earth, but the Jews were equally culpable.
Former tenants do not have a claim on the land.
And territorial losses that occurred as a result of the Arabs' military losses do not constitute a crime, or "apartheid," or "ethnic cleansing."
That is utter rubbish. When you displace a civilian population through military means it is ethnic cleansing. Tenants are stakeholders, and long term tenants do have rights in the modern world. At the time of course laws were different, regardless of the law the ethical basis of what happened is pretty clear. Also, how the Arab elites obtained titles is also murky and unclear. In either case, the British administrators put a stop to the land transfers, so clearly they saw issues with what was going on. As flawed as the British Empire was, I think I would rely on the actions of someone who was there rather then some biased person who only knows what happened from reading propaganda.Your arguments keep getting weaker.
Former tenants do not have a claim on the land.
And territorial losses that occurred as a result of the Arabs' military losses do not constitute a crime, or "apartheid," or "ethnic cleansing."
"Displace a civilian population?"That is utter rubbish. When you displace a civilian population through military means it is ethnic cleansing.
The Arabs waged war against the Jews and lost. Territorial losses are part of the deal.
Arabs make up about 20 per cent of Israel's population. That ain't "ethnic cleansing."
I said they "do not have a claim on the land."Tenants are stakeholders, and long term tenants do have rights in the modern world.
Long-term tenants may have rights but those rights do not include being viewed as owners of the property.
You're right it is.Nonsense, it is there for everyone to see.....
http://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?506089-More-Israeli-douchbaggery/page11
basketcase said:Strange that you have no problem justifying murder of some old dudes praying though.
nottyboi said:When did I justify it? I said it was a murder.
basketcase said:You said it was murder but was justified. You have said the same thing about every Palestinian attack on Jewish civilians. Every time a Jew is killed you say they should expect to be targeted and the murder is to be expected because Palestinians are angry.
Your proclaimed morals are distinctly one sided and if you justified Israeli actions the way you do Palestinian ones, you would be supporting the complete destruction of the Palestinian people (and that is exactly the goals of Hamas when applied to Jews).
nottyboi said:
If it was justified I would have called it justifiable homicide. It is possible the guy went insane after he got out of prison and saw what Israel did in Gaza, but since he was killed in the attack we will never know for sure. If Israel is engaged in killing a lot of Arabs, and it has 1.8M arab citizens, it can pretty much expect some trouble don't you think? Am I broken up about it? No I said already, I don't give a fuck.
Pretty black and white. You would call it justifiable homicide when some random old Jews are killed and proceeded to make up excuses for their actions.
The site attributes "Figures in italic prior to 1950 are from source "KB". Sounds pretty reliable.
Your pathetic justifications get deeper and deeper. When I bought my place, there was a tenant living in it. The previous owner had a contract with the tenant that became void when ite property was sold to me. That's how things work. And if that tenant showed up at my door today or went to the courts demanding to be let back in, I wouldn't be the only one laughing in his face.The wealthy arabs who sold the land, scum of the earth, but the Jews were equally culpable. You don't think they bought the land without seeing it do you? Like I said, the same.
First off, I have no clue how the Sykes Picot agreement was a blow against Arabs. They were given Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq to govern. the Balfour declaration only promised that a small chunk of the land would be put aside for Jews.As for the council, the Arabs refused to agree to the appointees because the British had already struck 2 blows against them. Firstly through Sykes Picote and then with the Balfour declaration.
As I said, plenty of Arabs became immensely wealthy because of the Brits and French. It is not an Arab/Jew thing, merely some slimy Arab leaders were looking to profit even further by scapegoating Jews.You fail to address how you expect the Arabs to place any trust in either the Jews or British in light of these two events.
Another immense steaming pile of bullshit. Jews owning land was not a threat to Arab lives. The threats (and actions) were those incited by Arab leadership such as Husseini against Jews for their own personal benefit that started well before the formation of groups like Irgun.After the land sales caused an explosion of violence as the arabs fought for their lives, the British actually had to put them to a stop.
First, it could be said that Israelis are desperate to live in peace so they attack terror groups that target Israeli civilians (yet you refuse to allow any justification for Israeli actions).Maybe you are finally starting to see though all that Jewish propaganda and realize that Arab violence is really an act of desperation.
Second, desperation is not an excuse to randomly murder civilians simply because of their religion.
So now in your pathetic crusade you are trying to conflate land purchases by Jews in the late 19th and early 20th century with the events after the Arab states declared war against Israel in 1948.That is utter rubbish. When you displace a civilian population through military means it is ethnic cleansing. Tenants are stakeholders, and long term tenants do have rights in the modern world. At the time of course laws were different, regardless of the law the ethical basis of what happened is pretty clear. Also, how the Arab elites obtained titles is also murky and unclear. In either case, the British administrators put a stop to the land transfers, so clearly they saw issues with what was going on. As flawed as the British Empire was, I think I would rely on the actions of someone who was there rather then some biased person who only knows what happened from reading propaganda.
Arabs who leases were voided when the Arab owners sold the land would have no legal right to remain. The only blame lies with the Arab owners who put personal profit ahead of their traditional duty of care under the feudal system (that ended around the turn of the 20th century).
The Israelis already live largely in peace, there is no desperation there. Not even close. If what you say was true, why did the british stop the land transfers. And how retarded is it to compare buying a condo vs a feudal system. Shows what a twit you are. What are the options for a feudal subsistance farmer who is displaced from his land? Go to Devry and learn how to become a computer engineer? How was the Sykes Picote agreement a blow to the Arabs? If you are that Historically retarded then it explains a lot. It would be the same as promising the Jews a state, then give them limited autonomy over a piece of land that is a colony by the UK or France. Here is some of why there was so much distrust:The site attributes "Figures in italic prior to 1950 are from source "KB". Sounds pretty reliable.
Your pathetic justifications get deeper and deeper. When I bought my place, there was a tenant living in it. The previous owner had a contract with the tenant that became void when ite property was sold to me. That's how things work. And if that tenant showed up at my door today or went to the courts demanding to be let back in, I wouldn't be the only one laughing in his face.
First off, I have no clue how the Sykes Picot agreement was a blow against Arabs. They were given Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq to govern. the Balfour declaration only promised that a small chunk of the land would be put aside for Jews.
As I said, plenty of Arabs became immensely wealthy because of the Brits and French. It is not an Arab/Jew thing, merely some slimy Arab leaders were looking to profit even further by scapegoating Jews.
Another immense steaming pile of bullshit. Jews owning land was not a threat to Arab lives. The threats (and actions) were those incited by Arab leadership such as Husseini against Jews for their own personal benefit that started well before the formation of groups like Irgun.
First, it could be said that Israelis are desperate to live in peace so they attack terror groups that target Israeli civilians (yet you refuse to allow any justification for Israeli actions).
Second, desperation is not an excuse to randomly murder civilians simply because of their religion.
Lord Balfour wrote a memorandum from the Paris Peace Conference which stated that the other allies had implicitly rejected the Sykes–Picot agreement by adopting the system of mandates. It allowed for no annexations, trade preferences, or other advantages. He also stated that the Allies were committed to Zionism and had no intention of honoring their promises to the Arabs.[23]
BTW the source KB = A hundred year (1890-1990) database for integrated environmental assessments /
C.G.M. Klein Goldewijk and J.J. Battjes (1997)
So there you have it. As clear as day you are full of shit.
Yet the major Palestinian faction including Hamas are openly vowing to destroy Israel. Doesn't sound very peaceful to me. And equally, most Palestinians live in peace yet you somehow use their issues as a means to justify murder of random civilians.The Israelis already live largely in peace,...
And no, at the time when Jews were buying land, it was not a feudal system. Either you have an issue with temporal mechanics (as in sequence of events) or you are just so desperate to find any way to whitewash Palestinian/Arab actions. And I'm sure there was hardship for people who no longer had farms but the problem lies squarely with the Arabs Palestinians who sold the land, not with the people that bought it.
You also seem to have difficulty explaining how Sykes-Picot was a blow to Arabs. Pretend you are explaining it to someone like yourself and put it in small words if you need but being given self rule over most of the land mass of the Middle East was hardly a blow to Arabs. Whatever Balfour said, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon all became independent state controlled by Arabs thanks to the agreement. It's pretty sad that Arabs then and now object to Jews controlling less than 1% of the region.
Exactly....the problem lies squarely with the Arabs Palestinians who sold the land, not with the people that bought it.
The only reason why there is peace in Israel is that they have successfully contained and limited violence by the Palestinians. If the limits on Palestinians were removed, Israel would not be peaceful. The Palestinians do everything they possibly can to inflict violence on Israel, and are simply thwarted by IDF.
So what, how many terrorist groups have vowed to destroy the USA, do Americans worry about it? Take a chill pill and stop shitting on your pants.Yet the major Palestinian faction including Hamas are openly vowing to destroy Israel. Doesn't sound very peaceful to me. And equally, most Palestinians live in peace yet you somehow use their issues as a means to justify murder of random civilians.
And no, at the time when Jews were buying land, it was not a feudal system. Either you have an issue with temporal mechanics (as in sequence of events) or you are just so desperate to find any way to whitewash Palestinian/Arab actions. And I'm sure there was hardship for people who no longer had farms but the problem lies squarely with the Arabs Palestinians who sold the land, not with the people that bought it.
You also seem to have difficulty explaining how Sykes-Picot was a blow to Arabs. Pretend you are explaining it to someone like yourself and put it in small words if you need but being given self rule over most of the land mass of the Middle East was hardly a blow to Arabs. Whatever Balfour said, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon all became independent state controlled by Arabs thanks to the agreement. It's pretty sad that Arabs then and now object to Jews controlling less than 1% of the region.
So if you were an Arab farmer facing ruin because some Jews bought your land and now wanted you off. What would your reaction be? And by hardship you mean probably starvation and death? Yeah sure. As for the Syke Picote Agreements, you talk nonsense. The arabs wanted independance, they were denied this, and the lands became parts of the colonies of France and Britain. That is why it is called MANDATORY PALESTINE. This was the objection. The hatred for Jews came from immigration and displacement of arabs for the most part. You keep making up nonsense, it is all wrong. From your rubbish about Arab immigration, population growth its all nonsense and like. Frankly I have no bias to either side as I am no national, religious or birth affiliation to either side. I only seem biased because you are terribly so.
It was only a few weeks ago that you claimed there was no "hatred for Jews" prior to the creation of the state of Israel.The hatred for Jews came from immigration and displacement of arabs for the most part. You keep making up nonsense, it is all wrong.
Perhaps you should refrain from accusing others of "making up nonsense."
Well I am not going to say that would not happen if they just opened the floodgates and the IDF dropped its weapons, but considering there are over 1.6M arab citizens of Israel, don't you think there would be chaos all the time if what you said was true and there was some short of hereditary hatred of jews in the arab gene?The only reason why there is peace in Israel is that they have successfully contained and limited violence by the Palestinians. If the limits on Palestinians were removed, Israel would not be peaceful. The Palestinians do everything they possibly can to inflict violence on Israel, and are simply thwarted by IDF.
This was all part of the process wasn't it? If all you can do is criticize these tiny chronological errors, perhaps you should rethink your positiion. Well I think we can see once the Balfour declaration was declared, only a moron would not know what was up. Perhaps I should have said there was no hatred of jews until Zionism was put into action.It was only a few weeks ago that you claimed there was no "hatred for Jews" prior to the creation of the state of Israel.
Perhaps you should refrain from accusing others of "making up nonsense."
