Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not tasked with disproving your cut and pasted YouTube videos. You are among those with the " I read it on the internet so it must be true", mentality. Your silly videos are of unknown circumstances and context. Pretty typical for mindless cut and pasters.What do you mean when you say "cut and paste"? That's just a sound bite with no meaning behind it. It's just some bullshit innuendo on your part, because you have no valid argument.As I noted, this makes good theatre. The Pal'istanian Arab terrorists exploited Shirley Temper for as long as they could use that farce for Pallywood Productions, Inc.
These silly Pallywood Productions, Inc. YouTube videos you cut and paste are designed for you slow adult types who are willing to mouth the bait.
Prove the videos are fake, whore.
Alright, I'm going to try to take a stab at the criteria for morality when fighting in armed conflict. Please feel free to add anything I might miss as I doubt it will be comprehensive on the first go-around.
1. Any engagement of armed conflict must have a "just cause" -- in particular the protection of citizen's from physical harm.
2. There must be an overall demonstrated military goal and a reasonable expectation of success.
3. There must be explicit military objectives for each operation.
4. Non-combatants and civilian infrastructure should never be targeted.
5. Engagement should minimize harm to non-combatants and civilian infrastructure as much as possible.
6. Indiscriminate weapons should not be used where there is the presence of non-combatants.
7. Use of non-violent means (economic sanctions, etc) should be used where possible.
8. Ensure passage of humanitarian aide.
Its a start.
Israeli Sniper T shirt - One Shot Two Kills, showing a pregnant women in the cross hairs.
Israeli Army T-Shirts Mock Gaza Killings
Actually it was GCVI that said that.Moral is not trashing someone's house for the same reason a dog licks its balls.So your claim that the IDF is the most immoral army in the world is based on the fact that they break inanimate objects? If you think that demonstrates an unparalleled immorality, the worst army in the world, I'd say you have just delivered the killing blow to your own ass.
Sheesh. THAT was easy. How very disappointing.
There you have it, folks. The most immoral army is the one that doesn't take enough care to the enemies china collection. Murdered half a million people? Made refugees of nearly 7 million people? Pwah. Not even close. The most immoral army in the world threw out a SOFA!
Moral is not treating everyone in Gaza as a terrorist.
Moral is not going in with the attitude there are no innocents.
Moral is not shitting all over the floor.
OMG! And then he defends it. As though the measure of morality is in how one treats inanimate objects. Unbelievable.
(And btw, YOU were the one who said that ALL Israelis in the OPT are fair game. Not me. Not Israel. Unbelievable).
That's a cop out. As the "objector", the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence they are false. In a court of law, if you did not provide evidence, your "objection" would be ruled "frivolous" and stricken from the record.I'm not tasked with disproving your cut and pasted YouTube videos.
This isn't about me.You are among those with the " I read it on the internet so it must be true", mentality.
The videos are eye-witness accounts from the people who were there.Your silly videos are of unknown circumstances and context. Pretty typical for mindless cut and pasters.
You haven't proved shit, whore. All you've done, is offer up bullshit conjecture and innuendo's.BTW, I already proved your cut and pasted videos are fake. Prove I haven't, you silly little boy.
WEST BANK: ISRAELI SOLDIERS CLASH WITH PALESTINIAN FRUIT SELLERS
This is not a war, it's a belligerent occupation.1. Who determines the "just cause"? The country itself, or the country and all it's allies?
2. Agreed. But, if this is your reason for going to war, then the Iraq war was an unjust one.
3. Agreed. See number 2.
4. According to the Geneva conventions, non combatants and infrastructure are off limits, but sometimes you've got to take out some of the infrastructure to drive your enemy into a certain area, so that is not always possible.
5. Again, Geneva conventions state as such, but, in the cases of what we had back in Viet Nam as well as the current situation in the ME, it's very difficult to separate combatants from non combatants, because the type of warfare those groups are engaged in means they blend in with the civilian population as much as possible.
6. Geneva conventions yet again. However, some of our current candidates for president want to "carpet bomb communities where terrorists are", regardless of how many civilians are there. Yes, indiscriminate weapons are immoral. Why do you think that the US has spent so much time and research on pinpoint accurate weapons?
7. Not applicable here, because sanctions are done by the diplomats and the political arms of the government, not the military. But yes, diplomatic means should ALWAYS BE USED FIRST when it comes to a possible war.
8. Ensuring passage of humanitarian aid isn't always possible, especially on a hot war front. Besides, it's not the military's job to provide aid, it's the job of the NGO's that follow the military into the war zones.
Interesting points that you brought up here, but you missed one major one, the treatment of POW's, and whether or not you would allow torture on enemy combatants. The Geneva conventions say this is forbidden, and that they must be treated humanely and given food, water and shelter while in custody.
I'm not tasked with disproving your cut and pasted YouTube videos.
Funny stuff. Obviously, you could not defend your silly cutting and pasting of YouTube videos so you launch into an expected juvenile tirade demanding others "disprove" what you're too lazy and /or incompetent to defend.That's a cop out. As the "objector", the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence they are false. In a court of law, if you did not provide evidence, your "objection" would be ruled "frivolous" and stricken from the record.I'm not tasked with disproving your cut and pasted YouTube videos.
This isn't about me.You are among those with the " I read it on the internet so it must be true", mentality.
The videos are eye-witness accounts from the people who were there.Your silly videos are of unknown circumstances and context. Pretty typical for mindless cut and pasters.
You haven't proved shit, whore. All you've done, is offer up bullshit conjecture and innuendo's.BTW, I already proved your cut and pasted videos are fake. Prove I haven't, you silly little boy.
It's a reaction to Islamic terrorism and an ideology based upon fascism as delineated in the Hamas Charter.This is not a war, it's a belligerent occupation.1. Who determines the "just cause"? The country itself, or the country and all it's allies?
2. Agreed. But, if this is your reason for going to war, then the Iraq war was an unjust one.
3. Agreed. See number 2.
4. According to the Geneva conventions, non combatants and infrastructure are off limits, but sometimes you've got to take out some of the infrastructure to drive your enemy into a certain area, so that is not always possible.
5. Again, Geneva conventions state as such, but, in the cases of what we had back in Viet Nam as well as the current situation in the ME, it's very difficult to separate combatants from non combatants, because the type of warfare those groups are engaged in means they blend in with the civilian population as much as possible.
6. Geneva conventions yet again. However, some of our current candidates for president want to "carpet bomb communities where terrorists are", regardless of how many civilians are there. Yes, indiscriminate weapons are immoral. Why do you think that the US has spent so much time and research on pinpoint accurate weapons?
7. Not applicable here, because sanctions are done by the diplomats and the political arms of the government, not the military. But yes, diplomatic means should ALWAYS BE USED FIRST when it comes to a possible war.
8. Ensuring passage of humanitarian aid isn't always possible, especially on a hot war front. Besides, it's not the military's job to provide aid, it's the job of the NGO's that follow the military into the war zones.
Interesting points that you brought up here, but you missed one major one, the treatment of POW's, and whether or not you would allow torture on enemy combatants. The Geneva conventions say this is forbidden, and that they must be treated humanely and given food, water and shelter while in custody.
WEST BANK: ISRAELI SOLDIERS CLASH WITH PALESTINIAN FRUIT SELLERS
Hey, everyone knows "circle fruit" is a threat to Israeli national security.
The Arabs couldn't care less about human rights or the Geneva Conventions.
Until you provide evidence to the contrary, I don't have to defend anything.Funny stuff. Obviously, you could not defend your silly cutting and pasting of YouTube videos so you launch into an expected juvenile tirade demanding others "disprove" what you're too lazy and /or incompetent to defend.
I haven't demanded anything, either.This will come as a shock to you but demanding "I read it on the internet so it must be true", nonsense is just that: nonsense.
Okay, have it your way; the "reaction" of brutally beating children, is not a moral act.It's a reaction to Islamic terrorism and an ideology based upon fascism as delineated in the Hamas Charter.
That wasn't even a good innuendo.Pallywood Productions, Inc., will take every opportunity to stage a confrontation. You simpletons are sure to find the video on the YouTube and mouth the bait.
Where are children brutally beaten™Okay, have it your way; the "reaction" of brutally beating children, is not a moral act.It's a reaction to Islamic terrorism and an ideology based upon fascism as delineated in the Hamas Charter.
