1896 Film of Palestine and Jerusalem.

[Lipush]

[

Hamas beheaded people who resisted it without any trial.

Don't you find that kind of hypocritical, when it constantly blames Israel for cutting TV channels, but then goes and kills of palestinian randomly?

I tried to find a link to what you are babbling about and couldn't.

The last forray into Gaza, the Zionists killed 2191 Palestinians. 76% of them were civilians.

Actually, that's also incorrect. among 2100 dead Palestinians, the civilians where not even 800.

How is that 76%, I don't know, but your sources are either not accurate, or lying.

Wow, you actaully believe Bibi's propaganda.

No, far from it.

We have a list of names, and they're conveniently "civilians" on those reports, but also "Activists" in others.

That's factually the case. I don't believe Natanyahu's propaganda, I can do my own self checking.

Maybe YOU'RE the one believing Palestinian propaganda. Sounds more logical.

 

[toastman]

[

We are talking about Israel proper. Jews make up 75% of the population. What does the West Bank and Gaza have to do with it ?

You mean the Zionists still aren't building "Settlements" in the West bank?

I was talking about Israel proper

 

[toastman]

[

You and your typical Arab double talk.

You claim to oppose terrorism immediately after offering your intentional sophistry by way of attempting to create the impression that innocent people can be considered strategic as long as your murderous friends think they are. Again, you fall back on the point of view ruse to justify terrorism.

.

So when we bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, Hanoi, Baghdad and killed a lot of innocent people, was that okay because they were "strategic"?

THere was this great film about the Algerian uprising against France, and they had an Algerian leader, and they asked him why they delivered bombs in women's baskets, and he replied, "You deliver bombs in planes. I'll gladly trade you our baskets for your planes."

Interesting point.

I can see that bombing Dresden and Hiroshima would be considered "stratigic targets" in a war that imo was justifiable. The intent was not to kill civilians, but win the war and those were major centers of industry etc important to the war effort or important in claiming a decisive victory.

That's also an interesting point on Algiers - I hadn't thought of it in that way.

Some people say the bombing saved lives because had it not happened, the war would continue and more people would die.

 

[montelatici]

They called these women freedom fighters. When the Palestinians do anything similar they are called terrorists. Why, because the targets are Jews rather than French. Get the hypocrisy?

 

[toastman]

They called these women freedom fighters. When the Palestinians do anything similar they are called terrorists. Why, because the targets are Jews rather than French. Get the hypocrisy?

Palestinians aren't terrorists. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are Palestinian terrorist groups.

 

[montelatici]

Were the FLN (National Liberation Front), the people in the clip that organized bombings of the French civilians, Algerian terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

 

[Coyote]

[

You and your typical Arab double talk.

You claim to oppose terrorism immediately after offering your intentional sophistry by way of attempting to create the impression that innocent people can be considered strategic as long as your murderous friends think they are. Again, you fall back on the point of view ruse to justify terrorism.

.

So when we bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, Hanoi, Baghdad and killed a lot of innocent people, was that okay because they were "strategic"?

THere was this great film about the Algerian uprising against France, and they had an Algerian leader, and they asked him why they delivered bombs in women's baskets, and he replied, "You deliver bombs in planes. I'll gladly trade you our baskets for your planes."

Interesting point.

I can see that bombing Dresden and Hiroshima would be considered "stratigic targets" in a war that imo was justifiable. The intent was not to kill civilians, but win the war and those were major centers of industry etc important to the war effort or important in claiming a decisive victory.

That's also an interesting point on Algiers - I hadn't thought of it in that way.

Some people say the bombing saved lives because had it not happened, the war would continue and more people would die.

That is what I heard. I also remember reading, somewhere, that the Japanese would not have surrendered with out a strong, powerful statement like that.

Either way...I would hate to have been the one to make that choice...that is why I dislike passing judgement on something in hindsight like that

 

[Coyote]

The amazing thing about South Africa is they had Nelson Mandela.

If that keeps them happy and stuff, of course.

Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have a Mandela. And they need one.

No thanks, jews don't need that comrade, and palistanians have their own one, Abu Mazen, with a doctorate from the Moscow Oriental Studies, of course.

It has nothing to do with "keeping them happy". It's about having a well respected leader who is able to convince his people - ALL his people - that unity and reconciliation is more important than revenge.

I don't think that is something to trivialize - whether for Jews or Palestininans.

 

[Coyote]

Ok. That I agree with.

Now answer the question.

Well, let's see here. One of the two groups in question here rewards mass murdering terrorists with streets being named after them, posters glorifying their actions and much celebration.

One of the group doesn't.

You figure it out.

You are still ducking and dodging.

What groups do you consider "freedom fighters"?
What groups do you consider "terrorists"?

Freedom fighters are those fighting against terrorists who are trying to wipe out one group and destroy their land

I don't think that definition of "freedom fighters" exists anywhere outside your own head.

Terrorists are the group that have it as their charter that they will wipe out the other group and destroy their country.

Terrorists have charters? Fancy that.

Freedom fighters do not target children with high explosives or surround their fighters with civilians so threy wont be the target of return fire. terrorists do all this and more.

Ok. Give me some examples of freedom fighter groups then since Dogma seems unable to.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Ronald Reagan was referring to the Taliban, who were Pakistani invaders in Afghanistan, not Bin Ladan who was a Saudi Jihadi. Reagan did what he had to do to ensure that the Russians were kicked out of Afghanistan. Like I said, its call National Security and sometimes you have to sleep with the devil that is the lesser of two evils.

History proves that Reagan made the right call, and successfully removed the Russians, but later administrations and presidents dropped the ball and ignored Afghanistan, until it became a failed state ruled by Islamists and terrorist organizations from which the plot for 9-11 was launched.

Uh, no, guy. The world is NOT better off because we funded religious fanatics in Afghanistan. We lit a fire that eventually came back and burned us. The Soviets were not the "Lesser evil". The Jihadists were.

And Ronnie Raygun never made a distinction between the native afghan resistance fighters (funded and manipulated by Pakistani intelligence) and the thousands of Arab Jihadists who migrated their to fight the unbelievers. Nor did the CIA< who armed and trained both.

 

[montelatici]

The ANC bombed shopping centers, hotels, court houses etc. They are considered Freedom Fighters. The Muhajedin in Afghanistan bombed girls schools, markets and restaurants, especially in Kabul. The U.S. considered them Freedom Fighters and armed them since they were fighting the Russians. Dogma is so full of shit it AIN'T FUNNY.

 

[JoeB131]

[

West Bank as in Judeah and Samaria of ancient Israel, the name for that land for 3000 years until the Arabs changed it to "West Bank" after 1948?

What right do Jews have to build in their ancient homeland, a land they won in a defensive war in 1967?!

Build baby build!

So when the Arabs eventually drive them out- and they will - you will be cool with that?

 

[JoeB131]

[

No, far from it.

We have a list of names, and they're conveniently "civilians" on those reports, but also "Activists" in others.

That's factually the case. I don't believe Natanyahu's propaganda, I can do my own self checking.

Maybe YOU'RE the one believing Palestinian propaganda. Sounds more logical.

Wow, seriously? Someone is an "activist", that makes it okay to kill them?

And Zionists wonder why the whole world hates you.

 

[Coyote]

It's hard coming up with a definition of "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" that doesn't overlap.

Freedom fighters often use terrorist tactics.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's hard coming up with a definition of "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" that doesn't overlap.

Freedom fighters often use terrorist tactics.

I did, but since you are dishonest by nature, you ignored the definition and engaged in underhanded speciousness, instead.

 

[montelatici]

[

West Bank as in Judeah and Samaria of ancient Israel, the name for that land for 3000 years until the Arabs changed it to "West Bank" after 1948?

What right do Jews have to build in their ancient homeland, a land they won in a defensive war in 1967?!

Build baby build!

So when the Arabs eventually drive them out- and they will - you will be cool with that?

Defensive war my ass. Israel started the war and it was not pre-emptive (which is an excuse warmongering nations like Nazi Germany and Israel use to justify starting wars)

"
Israel’s attack on Egypt in June ’67 was not ‘preemptive’
by Jeremy R. Hammond | July 4, 2010

It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.....the CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive"

Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive - Foreign Policy Journal

 

[montelatici]

It's hard coming up with a definition of "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" that doesn't overlap.

Freedom fighters often use terrorist tactics.

I did, but since you are dishonest by nature, you ignored the definition and engaged in underhanded speciousness, instead.

And, you are full of crap by nature. You define any group whose ends you disagree with as terrorists and those whose ends you agree with as Freedom Fighters. Your kind posts here all the time.

 

[toastman]

[

West Bank as in Judeah and Samaria of ancient Israel, the name for that land for 3000 years until the Arabs changed it to "West Bank" after 1948?

What right do Jews have to build in their ancient homeland, a land they won in a defensive war in 1967?!

Build baby build!

So when the Arabs eventually drive them out- and they will - you will be cool with that?

Defensive war my ass. Israel started the war and it was not pre-emptive (which is an excuse warmongering nations like Nazi Germany and Israel use to justify starting wars)

"
Israel’s attack on Egypt in June ’67 was not ‘preemptive’
by Jeremy R. Hammond | July 4, 2010

It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.....the CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive"

Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive - Foreign Policy Journal

LOL of course it was a pre emptive strike. Egypt massed troops on the border, expelled the peacekeeping troops that were placed there after the last war, made threats of annihalation to Israel. These are all facts. You see what I mean when I say you spew propaganda? LOL

And your Nazi comparison is as pathetic as you.

 

[toastman]

It's hard coming up with a definition of "freedom fighter" or "terrorist" that doesn't overlap.

Freedom fighters often use terrorist tactics.

I did, but since you are dishonest by nature, you ignored the definition and engaged in underhanded speciousness, instead.

And, you are full of crap by nature. You define any group whose ends you disagree with as terrorists and those whose ends you agree with as Freedom Fighters. Your kind posts here all the time.

You're a Muslim who supports terrorism. You are pure Nazi scum

 

[montelatici]

[

West Bank as in Judeah and Samaria of ancient Israel, the name for that land for 3000 years until the Arabs changed it to "West Bank" after 1948?

What right do Jews have to build in their ancient homeland, a land they won in a defensive war in 1967?!

Build baby build!

So when the Arabs eventually drive them out- and they will - you will be cool with that?

Defensive war my ass. Israel started the war and it was not pre-emptive (which is an excuse warmongering nations like Nazi Germany and Israel use to justify starting wars)

"
Israel’s attack on Egypt in June ’67 was not ‘preemptive’
by Jeremy R. Hammond | July 4, 2010

It is often claimed that Israel’s attack on Egypt that began the June 1967 “Six Day War” was a “preemptive” one. Implicit in that description is the notion that Israel was under imminent threat of an attack from Egypt. Yet this historical interpretation of the war is not sustained by the documentary record.....the CIA assessed that Nasser’s military presence in the Sinai was defensive"

Israel s attack on Egypt in June 67 was not preemptive - Foreign Policy Journal

LOL of course it was a pre emptive strike. Egypt massed troops on the border, expelled the peacekeeping troops that were placed there after the last war, made threats of annihalation to Israel. These are all facts. You see what I mean when I say you spew propaganda? LOL

And your Nazi comparison is as pathetic as you.

Of course, you won't read a neutral link which documents exactly why the Israeli attack was not pre-emptive. The CIA indicated that the Egyptians were defensive, fearful of an Israeli attack, which the U.S. Ambassador had warned Nasser of. The warmongering savages did in fact attack the Egyptians.