Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Shusha]

Where is your own outrage for your own suggestion that targeting and killing babies is permissible!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where is your own outrage for the suggestion that targeting and killing babies is permissible!

Where is yours?

 

[montelatici]

Do you think that the American Indians would have been justified in being more aggressive in attacking (and killing) European settlers in attempt to save their people and culture?

 

[Shusha]

You want my outrage for the Samouni family? Here it is:

People, like you, who portray innocents as viable targets for killing because you don't like them living on land which you think belongs to you exclusively or who are of the "wrong" ethnic group are vile, heinous, toxic and barbaric.

People, like you, who justify the ideology of jihad are vile, heinous, toxic and barbaric.

People like the Palestinians who prolong a war because sharing is inconceivable and "normalizing" relations with Jews is abhorrent are vile, heinous, toxic and barbaric.

Governments who rob their citizens of resources needed to live healthy lives and waste it on some futile low-impact battle of ideology which says no one else can ever live here except us, especially not the Jews, are vile, heinous, toxic and barbaric.

That enough outrage for you?

 

[Shusha]

Where is your own outrage for the suggestion that targeting and killing babies is permissible!

Where is yours?

I have NEVER said that targeting and killing babies is permissible. You have suggested this very thing.

The fact that you turn tables is a decoy to avoid discussing your own vile ideology. If you have the GUTS to post it, you should have the GUTS to discuss it. Own it or take it back.

 

[Shusha]

Do you think that the American Indians would have been justified in being more aggressive in attacking (and killing) European settlers in attempt to save their people and culture?

Well, "more" is ambiguous.

Do you think the American peoples are justified in attacking First Nations peoples should the First Nations peoples ask for and attempt to achieve self-determination? Do you think that the American peoples should use violence as a method of preventing First Nations sovereignty over a portion of the territory? Do you think it is legit for the US to invite Canada and Mexico to the party to prevent First Nations independence?

 

[montelatici]

It has nothing to do with now. The native American's culture has been destroyed their numbers were reduced to a point they could no longer resist they have been concentrated into "reservations" and are under complete control of the invading Europeans.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where is your own outrage for the suggestion that targeting and killing babies is permissible!

Where is yours?

I have NEVER said that targeting and killing babies is permissible. You have suggested this very thing.

The fact that you turn tables is a decoy to avoid discussing your own vile ideology. If you have the GUTS to post it, you should have the GUTS to discuss it. Own it or take it back.

Own this!

Last updated July 25, 2014

Children killed.

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Israelis: 131

TOTALS SINCE SEPT 2000:
Palestinians: 1656

Remember These Children

 

[Shusha]

So, no, you don't have the GUTS to own up to what you said and have to change the subject to hide your own vile ideology. Gotcha.

 

[Hollie]

Do you think that the American Indians would have been justified in being more aggressive in attacking (and killing) European settlers in attempt to save their people and culture?

Do you think that the Jewish people are not justified in defending themselves from Islamic terrorists who have a written charter that outlines their intention to kill every last Jew?

 

[Hollie]

Speaking about morality and basic human decency.

You dodged my question. So what do you want me to say? Do you want me to AGREE with you that children aren't innocents? And are therefore legitimate targets for killing?

Nope. Won't do it. People who live in a place where you don't want them to live are innocents.

Where is your outrage about the Samouni family?

Hamas laughs at them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So, no, you don't have the GUTS to own up to what you said and have to change the subject to hide your own vile ideology. Gotcha.

I didn't justify killing children. I am just pointing out your racism.

 

[Shusha]

So, no, you don't have the GUTS to own up to what you said and have to change the subject to hide your own vile ideology. Gotcha.

I didn't justify killing children. I am just pointing out your racism.

So you take back what you implied then and agree with me that killing children and other innocents is a vile ideology and you apologize for making the implication that it was permissible to kill children or that children are not "innocents".

 

[montelatici]

Could you point out the part of this "written charter" where it "outlines their intention to kill every last Jew"? I must have missed it with all the nutty Islamist hyperbole it contains if it is the Hamas Covenant you are referring to.

While invading/settling lands the native people will usually exhibit resistance by said native people. The invaders/settlers have the right to defend themselves from the attacks of the native people, but the native people have the right to attempt resist the invasion/settlement/colonization their ancestors had lived on for generations. Of course, it would have been preferable had the Zionists not invaded Palestine which is the cause of the conflict.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh --- get off the "perpetual victim" crutch....

Israel kills Palestinian civilians by the thousands and you post half a page about two Israelis.
Where was your post about the Palestinian deaths?

(OBSERVATION)

In the mid-19th Century, there was a Prussian Major General (Carl von Clausewitz) who wrote on the Western theory of War; focused on the moral and political components. But MG von Clausewitz is most famous for noting the realization that:

• "war is the continuation of politics by other means"
​

This is very applicable in the case of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP). In the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) Report of A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948 --- it was conspicuously noted that "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." This was a practical application of the von Clausewitz observation:

In the case of the HoAP, what they could not achieve through diplomatic and political efforts, they chose to adopt a quisi-militaristic and asymmetric strategy wherein they attempt to establish the perception that they are NOT subject to the Rules of War (Law of Land Warfare). And, as part of the continuation - the strategy would be to lure the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) into a series of ethical dilemmas where each tactical choice is equally damaging to the the world perception of Israel. The damned if you do --- damned if you don't position.

In the months immediately prior to the Israeli Operation Protective Edge, the HoAP had fired some 4000 Rockets into Israel --- and --- abducted and murdered three Israeli teenagers. In the year 2013, in the run-up to the 2014 confrontation, the IDF, the General Security Services (Israeli Counterintelligence and Internal Security), in conjunction with the Palestinian Authority (PA) neutralized more than 5 dozen terrorist events. The stated goals and intention (Saleh al-Arouri, a HAMAS Leader based in Turkey): "Our goal was to ignite an intifada in the West Bank and Jerusalem, as well as within the 1948 borders..."
​

There was very little question that the HoAP wanted to initiate a confrontation; but in order to make it appear that the Arab Palestinians were the victims of aggression, the HoAP had to induce the Israelis to launch first. In that way, under the UN Definition, the FIRST use of armed force by Israel constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression. This is not a new tactic, but a tried and true tactic used by hostile Arab nations attempting to garner political support and sympathy. It was used very effectively in the 1967 Six-Day War by the Egyptians by forcing the UNEF-I (First UN Emergency Force) and then running up nearly 800,000 troops and nearly 900 Russian Tanks up to the Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Line, triggering a preemptive attackby the Israelis.​

(COMMENT)

You are not paying attention. The discussion was actually based on the morality and ethics of the action. Not the effectiveness of the force itself. The ratio of Israelis to Arab Palestinians that are killed is a matter of competence and effectiveness of the fighting force. It has nothing to do with the question of legality.

In the case of the 2014 Operation Protective Edge, the HoAP in Gaza intentionally, with purpose and intent --- with the grave measure of depraved indifference to human life, set-out with the intention of luring the IDF into the dilemma of responding to engagements. The HoAP set the conditions to place the maximum number of civilian casualties by:

• The HoAP, to the extent feasible, intentionally placed military objectives in close proximity to (or actually in) densely populated areas.
• The HoAP, intentionally ignored the requirement to relocate civilians and protected facilities under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.
​

By doing so, the IDF can either not responde, giving the HoAP a location immune from counterattack; or --- the IDF can attack, nuetralizing the HoAP military advantage, under the condition of causing an exagerrated number of civilian casualties. In either choice, the advantage goes to the HoAP in the tactical effort or the propaganda effort.

(AGAIN)

This has absolutley nothing to do with the ratios of Israeli to Arab Palestinian dead. In fact, you use of that response is example of one side of the dilemma.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Could you point out the part of this "written charter" where it "outlines their intention to kill every last Jew"? I must have missed it with all the nutty Islamist hyperbole it contains if it is the Hamas Covenant you are referring to.

While invading/settling lands the native people will usually exhibit resistance by said native people. The invaders/settlers have the right to defend themselves from the attacks of the native people, but the native people have the right to attempt resist the invasion/settlement/colonization their ancestors had lived on for generations. Of course, it would have been preferable had the Zionists not invaded Palestine which is the cause of the conflict.

The Zionists™ invaded a "country of Pal'istan"? Never found any indication of that.

Have you banged your head too hard on your prayer mat again?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh --- get off the "perpetual victim" crutch....

Israel kills Palestinian civilians by the thousands and you post half a page about two Israelis.
Where was your post about the Palestinian deaths?

(OBSERVATION)

In the mid-19th Century, there was a Prussian Major General (Carl von Clausewitz) who wrote on the Western theory of War; focused on the moral and political components. But MG von Clausewitz is most famous for noting the realization that:

• "war is the continuation of politics by other means"
​

This is very applicable in the case of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP). In the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) Report of A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948 --- it was conspicuously noted that "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." This was a practical application of the von Clausewitz observation:

In the case of the HoAP, what they could not achieve through diplomatic and political efforts, they chose to adopt a quisi-militaristic and asymmetric strategy wherein they attempt to establish the perception that they are NOT subject to the Rules of War (Law of Land Warfare). And, as part of the continuation - the strategy would be to lure the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) into a series of ethical dilemmas where each tactical choice is equally damaging to the the world perception of Israel. The damned if you do --- damned if you don't position.

In the months immediately prior to the Israeli Operation Protective Edge, the HoAP had fired some 4000 Rockets into Israel --- and --- abducted and murdered three Israeli teenagers. In the year 2013, in the run-up to the 2014 confrontation, the IDF, the General Security Services (Israeli Counterintelligence and Internal Security), in conjunction with the Palestinian Authority (PA) neutralized more than 5 dozen terrorist events. The stated goals and intention (Saleh al-Arouri, a HAMAS Leader based in Turkey): "Our goal was to ignite an intifada in the West Bank and Jerusalem, as well as within the 1948 borders..."
​

There was very little question that the HoAP wanted to initiate a confrontation; but in order to make it appear that the Arab Palestinians were the victims of aggression, the HoAP had to induce the Israelis to launch first. In that way, under the UN Definition, the FIRST use of armed force by Israel constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression. This is not a new tactic, but a tried and true tactic used by hostile Arab nations attempting to garner political support and sympathy. It was used very effectively in the 1967 Six-Day War by the Egyptians by forcing the UNEF-I (First UN Emergency Force) and then running up nearly 800,000 troops and nearly 900 Russian Tanks up to the Israeli-Egyptian Armistice Line, triggering a preemptive attackby the Israelis.​

(COMMENT)

You are not paying attention. The discussion was actually based on the morality and ethics of the action. Not the effectiveness of the force itself. The ratio of Israelis to Arab Palestinians that are killed is a matter of competence and effectiveness of the fighting force. It has nothing to do with the question of legality.

In the case of the 2014 Operation Protective Edge, the HoAP in Gaza intentionally, with purpose and intent --- with the grave measure of depraved indifference to human life, set-out with the intention of luring the IDF into the dilemma of responding to engagements. The HoAP set the conditions to place the maximum number of civilian casualties by:

• The HoAP, to the extent feasible, intentionally placed military objectives in close proximity to (or actually in) densely populated areas.
• The HoAP, intentionally ignored the requirement to relocate civilians and protected facilities under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.
​

By doing so, the IDF can either not responde, giving the HoAP a location immune from counterattack; or --- the IDF can attack, nuetralizing the HoAP military advantage, under the condition of causing an exagerrated number of civilian casualties. In either choice, the advantage goes to the HoAP in the tactical effort or the propaganda effort.

(AGAIN)

This has absolutley nothing to do with the ratios of Israeli to Arab Palestinian dead. In fact, you use of that response is example of one side of the dilemma.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where do you get all this Israeli propaganda?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another evasive response.

Where do you get all this Israeli propaganda?

(COMMENT)

Let me know when you are readyt to challenge the allegations.

We are Looking at:

• Rule 23. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas. § Article 58(b) of Additional Protocol I
• Rule 24. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives. § Article 58(a) of Additional Protocol I
​

MostRespectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Could you point out the part of this "written charter" where it "outlines their intention to kill every last Jew"? I must have missed it with all the nutty Islamist hyperbole it contains if it is the Hamas Covenant you are referring to.

While invading/settling lands the native people will usually exhibit resistance by said native people. The invaders/settlers have the right to defend themselves from the attacks of the native people, but the native people have the right to attempt resist the invasion/settlement/colonization their ancestors had lived on for generations. Of course, it would have been preferable had the Zionists not invaded Palestine which is the cause of the conflict.

The Zionists™ invaded a "country of Pal'istan"? Never found any indication of that.

Have you banged your head too hard on your prayer mat again?

You have a reading comprehension problem. Where was the word "country" in the post you responded to.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is just another evasive response.

Where do you get all this Israeli propaganda?

(COMMENT)

Let me know when you are readyt to challenge the allegations.

We are Looking at:

• Rule 23. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas. § Article 58(b) of Additional Protocol I
• Rule 24. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives. § Article 58(a) of Additional Protocol I
​

MostRespectfully,
R

Israel and Palestine use the exact same narrative.

Israel attacks in the direction of rockets.

Palestine attacks in the direction of tanks and airplanes.