London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference? Nothing

[montelatici]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Apparently Monte thinks it's OK for a Palestinian to mow down people with a car.

Its just fine to murder people if you have a just cause.

Sure, ask Israel when it bombs the crap out of civilians in Gaza.

 

[P F Tinmore]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

 

[Shusha]

View attachment 131591

Terrorism by my definition. Just cause by yours.

What was your point?

 

[Shusha]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

No one is attacking the Palestinians. They aren't defending against attacks. They are defending against "oppression and occupation".

 

[Hollie]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

How odd that the Arab-Moslem terrorists in the Islamic terrorist enclaves of "Pal'istan" are using the same tactics as ISIS.

Why are tactics used by ISIS, which you describe as aggressive, and the same tactics, used by Arabs-Moslems in "Pal'istan" viewed as defensive?

 

[P F Tinmore]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

No one is attacking the Palestinians. They aren't defending against attacks. They are defending against "oppression and occupation".

Are you saying that those are not aggressions?

 

[montelatici]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

No one is attacking the Palestinians. They aren't defending against attacks. They are defending against "oppression and occupation".

Occupation is aggression, it is an attack. Now, I am against violence as a means to achieve freedom, but I find it absurd that the Palestinians are criticized for using violence, something that people under occupation have always done.

 

[Roudy]

Apparently Monte thinks it's OK for a Palestinian to mow down people with a car.

Its just fine to murder people if you have a just cause.

Not surprising yet quite sad, since it shows where their ethics and morals are. Even their cause isn't just.

 

[Roudy]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

No one is attacking the Palestinians. They aren't defending against attacks. They are defending against "oppression and occupation".

Occupation is aggression, it is an attack. Now, I am against violence as a means to achieve freedom, but I find it absurd that the Palestinians are criticized for using violence, something that people under occupation have always done.

Bullshit, as your posts clearly show, you justify Palestinian animals that drive over, stab, and blow up innocent Israelis.

 

[Roudy]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

How do you defensively stab or drive over an innocent woman standing at a bus stop, asshole? You people are truly demented.

 

[P F Tinmore]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

No one is attacking the Palestinians. They aren't defending against attacks. They are defending against "oppression and occupation".

Occupation is aggression, it is an attack. Now, I am against violence as a means to achieve freedom, but I find it absurd that the Palestinians are criticized for using violence, something that people under occupation have always done.

Bullshit, as your posts clearly show, you justify Palestinian animals that drive over, stab, and blow up innocent Israelis.

Drop in the bucket compared to Israel's crimes.

 

[Roudy]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

No one is attacking the Palestinians. They aren't defending against attacks. They are defending against "oppression and occupation".

Occupation is aggression, it is an attack. Now, I am against violence as a means to achieve freedom, but I find it absurd that the Palestinians are criticized for using violence, something that people under occupation have always done.

Nobody cares about your opinion and what you "find".

Until you openly condemn the barbaric actions of the Palestinians as what they are, savagery and terrorism against innocent civilians, with no justification whatsoever, you remain as morally bankrupt as the rest of the terrorist ass kissers.

 

[Roudy]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

No one is attacking the Palestinians. They aren't defending against attacks. They are defending against "oppression and occupation".

Occupation is aggression, it is an attack. Now, I am against violence as a means to achieve freedom, but I find it absurd that the Palestinians are criticized for using violence, something that people under occupation have always done.

Bullshit, as your posts clearly show, you justify Palestinian animals that drive over, stab, and blow up innocent Israelis.

Drop in the bucket compared to Israel's crimes.

Wrong again, Israelis are clearly the good guys, and Palestinians, judging by their barbaric ISIS-like behavior are clearly in the wrong. No and ifs or buts.

So how do you "defensively" drive over a civilian standing at a bus stop, psycho?

 

[P F Tinmore]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

How do you defensively stab or drive over an innocent woman standing at a bus stop, asshole? You people are truly demented.

Drop in the bucket, asshole.

 

[Roudy]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

How do you defensively stab or drive over an innocent woman standing at a bus stop, asshole? You people are truly demented.

Drop in the bucket, asshole.

I asked you a simple question, how do you defensively drive over a civilian at a bus top, or a blow up bunch of kids going to a movie? Please explain, I really want to know. This is very interesting.

 

[Hollie]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

How do you defensively stab or drive over an innocent woman standing at a bus stop, asshole? You people are truly demented.

Drop in the bucket, asshole.

We love Death more than you love life™

 

[montelatici]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

No one is attacking the Palestinians. They aren't defending against attacks. They are defending against "oppression and occupation".

Occupation is aggression, it is an attack. Now, I am against violence as a means to achieve freedom, but I find it absurd that the Palestinians are criticized for using violence, something that people under occupation have always done.

Nobody cares about your opinion and what you "find".

Until you openly condemn the barbaric actions of the Palestinians as what they are, savagery and terrorism against innocent civilians, with no justification whatsoever, you remain as morally bankrupt as the rest of the terrorist ass kissers.

Being under occupation has been justification enough for every other population that has been occupied militarily. Why should not the Palestinians be justified in resisting military occupation? The savages are those that employ military occupation, like the Nazis, Israelis etc.

 

[Roudy]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

No one is attacking the Palestinians. They aren't defending against attacks. They are defending against "oppression and occupation".

Occupation is aggression, it is an attack. Now, I am against violence as a means to achieve freedom, but I find it absurd that the Palestinians are criticized for using violence, something that people under occupation have always done.

Nobody cares about your opinion and what you "find".

Until you openly condemn the barbaric actions of the Palestinians as what they are, savagery and terrorism against innocent civilians, with no justification whatsoever, you remain as morally bankrupt as the rest of the terrorist ass kissers.

Being under occupation has been justification enough for every other population that has been occupied militarily. Why should not the Palestinians be justified in resisting military occupation? The savages are those that employ military occupation, like the Nazis, Israelis etc.

So the Palestinians are justified to drive over and stab any Israeli civilian they can get their hands on? Maybe you can help Tinmore explain to us how you intentionally defensively drive over a lady standing at a bus stop.

With idiots like you as their propagandists and supporters do the Palestinians need any enemies?

 

[Shusha]

London terrorists, Palestinian terrorists, what's the difference?

The Palestinian's actions are defensive.

The London attacks are aggressive.

No one is attacking the Palestinians. They aren't defending against attacks. They are defending against "oppression and occupation".

Are you saying that those are not aggressions?

That is EXACTLY what I am saying. The presence of people in a place is never aggression, of itself.

Case in point: Are Arab Israelis aggressors for living in Israel?