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.
So yeah. Who's got nothin now Chump.
So yeah. Who's got nothin now Chump.
That would be you as you seem to be following a different conversation from the rest of us. So from this you concede that the massacre occured, you are just disputing the "mass rape" element?
So are you simply lying again or can point out in my last or for that matter in any of my posts where I "admitted" any massacre occurred ?...
What about your hasbara
You did claim that the Bedouin weren't from Arabia ?
You did claim that the Bedouin were native to Israel LOL ?
You did claim that all Israeli's are from Europe ?
The list your hasbara is endless. ;--)
Or is that something else we should forget
Best forget the hasbara designed to incite by virtue of the Arab Muslim false narrative ole Bean.
So are you simply lying again or can point out in my last or for that matter in any of my posts where I "admitted" any massacre occurred ?...
Oh good grief. Do us both a favour and read my posts carefully, then ask a native english speaker to explain them to you before you come out with this rubbish. I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you basic English comprehension.
So you are unable to refute the fact you admitted no rapes occurred, yourself claiming it was an exaggeration, exactly as I've claimed all along....
No problemo, refute Uri Milstein, then.There appear to be a lot of "eye witness" here. I prefer to back up my statements with sources. Refute them, or move on.The problem with framing it that way is that for many Palestinians - that conflict has not ended, it is still warfare. You are effectively legitimizing their actions by saying that in war, there are no lines that can not be crossed - that nothing goes "too far". I don't agree with that. There is a reason some actions are considered war crimes.
You misunderstand my meaning. I am not in any way saying that there is no such thing as a war crime or that in war "anything goes". Not at all.
I am saying there is a difference between a battle between two groups where each group is firing upon the other and sneaking into someone's house to slit their throats.
Again, you are ignoring the context of the villager's resistance.
I'm not seeing much of a moral difference - it seems to me that the cold blooded killing of children is inexusable regardless of the context in which it occurs. It takes a special kind of person to look at a cowering child and shoot it or to smash open the belly of a pregnant woman (as was reported). The context may differ - but that willful act - does not.
But you have not proven beyond any doubt that the Jews killed children have you. All you have is unsubstantiated individual reports of maybe's and might have dones
It's substantiated. You have plenty of first person reports (much like some of what substantiated the Holocaust). Those reports came from Jewish sources as well as Palestinian. What exactly do you expect?
When one person alone makes a statement that is not substantiated by eyewitness accounts then it is not evidence. With the holocaust 20 people will have said I saw the butcher shoot Eli in the head, that is corroborated testimony. But I forget that you follow the Islamic rule of law that says a muslims word is worth that or a million infidels
What about your hasbara
You did claim that the Bedouin weren't from Arabia ?
You did claim that the Bedouin were native to Israel LOL ?
You did claim that all Israeli's are from Europe ?
The list your hasbara is endless. ;--)
Or is that something else we should forget
Best forget the hasbara designed to incite by virtue of the Arab Muslim false narrative ole Bean.
Why is material related to Deir Yassin STILL classified after 68 years? Makes one wonder.
Wondering is fine but jumping to conclusions or making wild assumptions isn't.
Given the exemplary conduct of the Israeli military and the blatant lies so typical of the Arab Muslim narrative I can't see not giving the benefit of the doubt to the Israeli's until more information is available
We are not talking about the modern Israeli army. We are talking about the various paramilitaries that made up the Jewish resistance. Do some research on Lehi and Irgun, look up the list of attacks Irgun made.
Have you, and if you have why were they originally formed back in the early 1920's ?
Your reply doesn't make any sense.
It does if you are a native English speaker. Your answer shows that you don't know what the IDF was originally created for, and what they did.
This almost deserves it's own thread - I profoundly disagree. The fighting that led to the founding of Israel was as much a clash of ideologies as it was of nationalist inspirations. The Jewish nationalists were comprised of ideological groups that ranged from relatively benign to extreme. They were also comprised of a number of semi-autonomous para-militaries - in fact, I think there are a lot of parallels to the situation in the Mid East in general where you have failed states and independent militias that represent a spectrum of ideological extremes.
When it comes to ideologies - those at the extremes of that ideology have more in common with the extremes of other ideologies than they do with their more moderate counterpart, and that is independent of culture. I can think of a lot of examples. When you are looking at extremes you are looking at people who's cause is so important that they are willing to kill innocent people for it - the ends justifies the means. Bombs are set in civilian centers - they don't know who they are killing, and they don't care because the cause matters over lives. In general, Christian culture is - should be - pretty pacifist based on it's religious tenants - but in reality? Not always. Lehi and Irgun both held to an ideology that was against any sharing or partition of Palestine. They were considered pretty extreme by their peers.
Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say Palestinians kill Jews because they are Jews? (in otherwords not because they see Israeli's as their enemy or an occupying force)? Is that a myth then that is being perpetrated and leading young people to hate the Palestinians - and yes, that is a problem that even some of Israel's politicians have acknowledged after violent incidents)?
In the case of Deir Yassin - why else would they kill children?
Here is what I don't understand Shusha - it seems, when I read your replies, you call it a "complicated nuanced conflict" when it comes to the actions of the Israeli's - but that seems to disappear when it comes to the actions of the Palestinians.
I agree, it is often complicated and nuanced - but not every individual situation is. When a para-military group, known for it's extremism, set's off a bomb in a civilian market place....what is it? When a para-military group, known for it's extremism, goes house to house killing inhabitants, including children...what is it? What do you call it when they parade captured women and children in West Jeruselum before killing them and dumping their bodies in a quarry? Why did they kill defenseless children? Because they are Arabs and they wanted to send a message to other Arabs that the same thing could happen to them?
How is the deliberate killing of innocents such as the Fogel family different than the deliberate killing of innocents such as the children in that village? Killing those children went beyond an "act of conflict" and became an act of "egregious violence" against innocents - it crossed an important line.
The problem with framing it that way is that for many Palestinians - that conflict has not ended, it is still warfare. You are effectively legitimizing their actions by saying that in war, there are no lines that can not be crossed - that nothing goes "too far". I don't agree with that. There is a reason some actions are considered war crimes.
Collateral damage - Israel bombs Gaza, does it's best to prevent civilian casualties in a densely populated area where fighters are mixed with civilians - civilians will end up killed no matter how careful one is. THAT is collateral damage.
Not collateral damage - soldiers take a village, despite the fact that that village had a non-aggression pact, and walk through house by house killing civlians inside - the elderly, women and children. Taking 25 as prisoners, they paraded them through West Jeruslelum before being taken back, shot and their bodies dumped in a quarry. THAT is NOT collateral damage.
I think that, in this particular event, it is being used to excuse something that is inexcusable. You can try to understand them, in the context of the times and the conflict that was going on - but once you start excusing them, then where does that road end?
Something similar happened with our soldiers in Iraq - I would have to dig to find it - but the person in charge, ordered his men to shoot down civilians in a village - there was no military need to do so. He was courtmartialed, tried and found guilty. Even in war, there are some lines that should not be crossed.
Again your making an assumption
Quote
Why else would they kill children
End Quote
We don't know that any children were killed.
Yes, we do - their bodies were found.
So who killed them is the next question, and it is not past the arab muslims to plant bodies from elsewhere as a means of propaganda. Finding bodies does not prove that the Jews killed them does it ?
There's plenty of evidence that they were killed by Irgun and Lehi, not the least of which they did not deny it, but indeed bragged about it. Are you suggesting that they would have issued an apology if they had not done it? You're grasping at straws.
And the testimony was withdrawn at a later date with the admittance that it was propaganda to have the arab muslims running away. So which statement is the true one by the Jews
that they massacred thousands of arab muslims
that they made up the story
Both told by the same person
So you are unable to refute the fact you admitted no rapes occurred, yourself claiming it was an exaggeration, exactly as I've claimed all along....
This is called a strawman fallacy. This is proof BoSton1 created strawmen fallacies just so he can knock them down.
What about your hasbara
You did claim that the Bedouin weren't from Arabia ?
You did claim that the Bedouin were native to Israel LOL ?
You did claim that all Israeli's are from Europe ?
The list your hasbara is endless. ;--)
Or is that something else we should forget
Best forget the hasbara designed to incite by virtue of the Arab Muslim false narrative ole Bean.
Standard tactic from the Hasbara playbook, focus on a minutia then try to drive the thread off topic whilst constantly repeating a slogan or sound bite.
No problemo, refute Uri Milstein, then.You misunderstand my meaning. I am not in any way saying that there is no such thing as a war crime or that in war "anything goes". Not at all.
I am saying there is a difference between a battle between two groups where each group is firing upon the other and sneaking into someone's house to slit their throats.
Again, you are ignoring the context of the villager's resistance.
I'm not seeing much of a moral difference - it seems to me that the cold blooded killing of children is inexusable regardless of the context in which it occurs. It takes a special kind of person to look at a cowering child and shoot it or to smash open the belly of a pregnant woman (as was reported). The context may differ - but that willful act - does not.
But you have not proven beyond any doubt that the Jews killed children have you. All you have is unsubstantiated individual reports of maybe's and might have dones
It's substantiated. You have plenty of first person reports (much like some of what substantiated the Holocaust). Those reports came from Jewish sources as well as Palestinian. What exactly do you expect?
When one person alone makes a statement that is not substantiated by eyewitness accounts then it is not evidence. With the holocaust 20 people will have said I saw the butcher shoot Eli in the head, that is corroborated testimony. But I forget that you follow the Islamic rule of law that says a muslims word is worth that or a million infidels
It wasn't one person alone. Each person's word carries equal weight until it's proven false, silly little man.
Again your making an assumption
Quote
Why else would they kill children
End Quote
We don't know that any children were killed.
Yes, we do - their bodies were found.
So who killed them is the next question, and it is not past the arab muslims to plant bodies from elsewhere as a means of propaganda. Finding bodies does not prove that the Jews killed them does it ?
There's plenty of evidence that they were killed by Irgun and Lehi, not the least of which they did not deny it, but indeed bragged about it. Are you suggesting that they would have issued an apology if they had not done it? You're grasping at straws.
And the testimony was withdrawn at a later date with the admittance that it was propaganda to have the arab muslims running away. So which statement is the true one by the Jews
that they massacred thousands of arab muslims
that they made up the story
Both told by the same person
The only testimony withdrawn was inflated numbers used as propoganda. The other inaccuracies were that one man reported that there was no evidence of mutilations (as some reported) on the bodies (yes there were bodies). I already posted plenty of links on the massacre, including a very good website from a Jewish source that examined all of the available evidence, compared it for contradictory claims, and analyzed the result - it's the only place where I've seen all the evidence available on one site.
It's also interesting that evidence, including the photos that were taken, remains classified.
Yes, we do - their bodies were found.
So who killed them is the next question, and it is not past the arab muslims to plant bodies from elsewhere as a means of propaganda. Finding bodies does not prove that the Jews killed them does it ?
There's plenty of evidence that they were killed by Irgun and Lehi, not the least of which they did not deny it, but indeed bragged about it. Are you suggesting that they would have issued an apology if they had not done it? You're grasping at straws.
And the testimony was withdrawn at a later date with the admittance that it was propaganda to have the arab muslims running away. So which statement is the true one by the Jews
that they massacred thousands of arab muslims
that they made up the story
Both told by the same person
The only testimony withdrawn was inflated numbers used as propoganda. The other inaccuracies were that one man reported that there was no evidence of mutilations (as some reported) on the bodies (yes there were bodies). I already posted plenty of links on the massacre, including a very good website from a Jewish source that examined all of the available evidence, compared it for contradictory claims, and analyzed the result - it's the only place where I've seen all the evidence available on one site.
It's also interesting that evidence, including the photos that were taken, remains classified.
Did you miss the withdrawal of reports regarding rapes, mutilated children etc as a propaganda tool.
I am a citizen and a civilian I reject the idea that if I protect home and family I would be classified as a militant who could be killed without consequence.Typical Israeli combat. Military attack on civilians. Same as it is today.I think the evidence that a massacre was not the intent is weak, for several reasons.
Please. They sent a warning. They allowed people to flee both before and during the combat. 85% of the populace survived the attack. The evidence against a "massacre" is strong.
I'm not questioning that Irgun and Lehi didn't commit terrorist attacks. They clearly did. Nor do I reject the idea that they were quite willing to kill people in order to further their cause. But I reject the idea that they intended, generally, to kill the populace of the village of Deir Yassin in this particular event. (Thus, a "massacre").
And I reject the idea that commemorating the event does anything other than to bury the nuances of the event and the times during which the event occurred and mythologize the event in order to sell a narrative which serves a current purpose -- to infect (as Rocco so articulately put it) the next generations with the idea that Israel (the Jewish people) have no respect for Arab lives. Rather than framing it as one of many battles during the war, in which people, including innocents, tragically, lost their lives.
They would have encountered some resistance - after all, the village was being attacked despite a pact of non-aggression.
This, to me, indicates that it was a combat rather than a massacre. Why does it not suggest so to you?
Typical islamonazi propaganda ignoring the truth so you can demonise the Jews. Prove they were civilians and not militia, terrorists, extremists and soldiers ?
