Everyone needs to watch this video

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

yup. we said innocent and unarmed civillians. "violent settlers" do not fall into that category. where is the confusion?

Thanks for clearing that up for me. So you and Soulsinging disagree then. As far as you're concerned, settlers who verbally abuse old men and women, spit at them, and beat them with their fists, qualify as innocent civilians? The settlers in the article I posted above, who, on a daily basis were recorded abusing schoolgirls on their way to school, beating them with their fists, and throwing rocks at them, constitute innocent civilians?

you are asking me if someone verbally abuses another person, they should be shot and killed? no, thats not what I'm saying.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

yes. thats what I'm saying. thats just a hopeful guess. and, in my opinion, worth a shot for Hamas. the alternative (firing rockets into Israel) has not done them any good.

Israel massacred 900 civilians, including 400 children, in January of this year, and your response is that the Palestinians must renounce violence and lay down their weapons.

Truly mind-boggling.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

yes. thats what I'm saying. thats just a hopeful guess. and, in my opinion, worth a shot for Hamas. the alternative (firing rockets into Israel) has not done them any good.

Israel massacred 900 civilians, including 400 children, in January of this year, and your response is that the Palestinians must renounce violence and lay down their weapons.

Truly mind-boggling.

what excuse did Israel use for massacring 900 civilians? o thats right, to protect themselves from rockets being fired into Israel.

take rockets out of the equation, maybe, just maybe, Israel wouldn't have a reason to "protect" itself.

its shocking, I know.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

What are you a lawyer or something? If you want to play semantics, by all means, have fun diddling yourself all day. We said innocent, unarmed, civilians, and a half dozen other descriptors at various times. I think it was plenty clear who we were referring to. But if playing dumb helps you feel like you were right and vindicated, don't let me piss on your parade.

If you're carrying a bat or rocks, you're not unarmed. If you're assaulting, abusing, or harassing, you're not innocent. Clear?

Don't pretend that was your angle all along, because it wasn't. You said innocent civilians & unarmed civilians. You failed to account for the mass of violent settlers who didn't fall into your cozy categories.

You and Jlew excel at playing semantics, putting words in others mouths, and generally muddying the water with your bullshit, so how about you take that stick out of your ass?

You're a piece of work my man. Even when we've discovered we agree you continue to argue. Are you hoping at some point I'll apologize for ever disputing your genius, beg your forgiveness, and praise you as the most brilliant political mind of our time? What kind of validation are you hoping for here? Will it make you feel a lot better about yourself if jlew and I just say you're absolutely right about everything and nobody can ever possibly dispute a point you've made (despite the fact that I already shot down your claimed expertise on American free speech)? If your self esteem needs a boost that bad, I'm not above helping you out man.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

you are asking me if someone verbally abuses another person, they should be shot and killed? no, thats not what I'm saying.

Nice try at avoiding the fact that they beat people, sometimes to death. I posted a bunch of articles above which highlight the daily physical assaults by these settlers. But never mind that part, just focus your attention on the verbal abuse. This is perfectly in line with your reasoning all along in this thread - Israel has been engaged in a 60 year brutal ethnic cleansing campaign and land grab. It is currently in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions. It stands accused of war crimes by every international human rights organization, along with the U.N. Less than 6 months ago it carried out a massacre against a defenseless civilian population whom it had previously imprisoned for two years and reduced to abject poverty and chronic malnutrition.
And your response is that the Palestinians need to renounce violence and lay down their weapons, and that Israel is a civilized and benevolent nation.

Go figure.

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

I already shot down your claimed expertise on American free speech)

Sure, give yourself a pat on the back. I pretended to be an 'expert' on American free speech as it pertains to racial hatred on the internet. Your chest must have been swelling with pride ever since. Did you tell your lawyer buddies in the bar about it yesterday?

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

what excuse did Israel use for massacring 900 civilians? o thats right, to protect themselves from rockets being fired into Israel.

take rockets out of the equation, maybe, just maybe, Israel wouldn't have a reason to "protect" itself.

its shocking, I know.

And what excuse did Israel give for the two year illegal blockade of Gaza which preceded the rocket attacks? Or are you going to pretend that the first rocket attack was carried out in year zero?

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

yup. we said innocent and unarmed civillians. "violent settlers" do not fall into that category. where is the confusion?

Thanks for clearing that up for me. So you and Soulsinging disagree then. As far as you're concerned, settlers who verbally abuse old men and women, spit at them, and beat them with their fists, qualify as innocent civilians? The settlers in the article I posted above, who, on a daily basis were recorded abusing schoolgirls on their way to school, beating them with their fists, and throwing rocks at them, constitute innocent civilians?

Spitting and yelling... innocent in the sense they don't deserve to die. You don't kill someone for talking shit about you. Though given your anger and aggression in here, I can see why you'd try to justify it.

Beating... not innocent and fair game for fighting back. That's called self defense.

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

Beating... not innocent and fair game for fighting back. That's called self defense.

Right, so do we agree that the thousands of settlers who engage in routine physical violence against Palestinians constitute legitimate targets?

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

you are asking me if someone verbally abuses another person, they should be shot and killed? no, thats not what I'm saying.

Nice try at avoiding the fact that they beat people, sometimes to death. I posted a bunch of articled above which highlight the daily physical assaults by these settlers. But never mind that part, just focus your attention on the verbal abuse.

you are the one who mentioned "verbal abuse" as a reason to kill someone, not me.

if one of those settlers beat someone up, I expect the other person to fight back. are we going to argue on a case by case basis here on which settlers deserve to die and which dont?

Byrnzie wrote:

This is perfectly in line with your reasoning all along in this thread - Israel has been engaged in a 60 year brutal ethnic cleansing campaign and land grab. It is currently in breach of over 60 U.N resolutions. It stands accused of war crimes by every international human rights organization, along with the U.N. Less than 6 months ago it carried out a massacre against a defenseless civilian population whom it had previously imprisoned for two years and reduced to abject poverty and chronic malnutrition.
And your response is that the Palestinians need to renounce violence and lay down their weapons,

yes. I think its in the Palestinians best interest to lay down their arms and renouce violence. I do not feel the alternative, of firing worthless rockets into Israel, will help their cause at all. I think it will just bring on more death and destruction. and thats not what I want.

Byrnzie wrote:

and that Israel is a civilized and benevolent nation.

Go figure.

I never said that. I even had to reply again since you "muddy the waters" and "put words in my mouth"

wait, didnt you just accuse others of doing that?

go figure.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

I already shot down your claimed expertise on American free speech)

Sure, give yourself a pat on the back. I pretended to be an 'expert' on American free speech as it pertains to racial hatred on the internet. Your chest must have been swelling with pride ever since. Did you tell your lawyer buddies in the bar about it yesterday?

I don't go to bars. Nor do I need validation from winning debates with people on the internet to feel proud of myself. The point was simply that you don't have a monopoly on truth or even intelligent opinion, but that if you really need the validation, just ask and I'll see what I can for you. We have found we agree that innocent unarmed people shouldn't be targeted for violence, yet here you are, still trying to argue to prove... what exactly? Quit while you're ahead. Last time you tried to carry this to the next step, it ended with you finding you were 100% wrong.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

lol wow. I wonder if you were warned about this type of rhetoric.

Lol wow. Look at the post I was responding to.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Beating... not innocent and fair game for fighting back. That's called self defense.

Right, so do we agree that the thousands of settlers who engage in routine physical violence against Palestinians constitute legitimate targets?

thousands? its probably 10s of thousands...no no millions of settlers who regularly participate in beatings of Palastinians.


how about a jewish guy, mid 40s, married, 3 children. he moved to Israel from Poland. he moves into a single family home in occupied land. he, or his family, have never spit, yelled at, or beat up any Palestinian.

is he and his family a valid target?

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

I don't go to bars. Nor do I need validation from winning debates with people on the internet to feel proud of myself.

And it's a good job that you don't.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Beating... not innocent and fair game for fighting back. That's called self defense.

Right, so do we agree that the thousands of settlers who engage in routine physical violence against Palestinians constitute legitimate targets?

Haven't we covered this already? I feel like a dog chasing its godamn tail... those that engage in violence are not innocent, so sure. They're in there with military installations and other legit targets for the resistance. Innocent, unarmed women and children are not. Am I taking crazy pills or something? Is that such a difficult conclusion to reach?

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

thousands? its probably 10s of thousands...no no millions of settlers who regularly participate in beatings of Palastinians.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oc ... middleeast


Israeli army chief slams settler attacks

Jewish extremists are stepping up attacks on West Bank Palestinians and peace activists

A recent UN report documented 222 attacks in the first half of this year, against a total of 291 for the whole of last year. On Friday, the former mayor of a West Bank settlement, Daniella Weiss, was charged with assaulting police officers. She allegedly hit police who had arrived at her house to search for suspects accused of setting fire to a Palestinian-owned olive grove.

Settlers said that the arrests were part of a 'witch-hunt' in the aftermath of the attack on Sternhell and claim that the attacks are carried out in self-defence.

Last month, after a Palestinian entered a Jewish settlement, burnt a house and stabbed a boy, dozens of settlers raided a nearby Palestinian village, throwing stones, firing guns into the air, breaking windows, damaging property and daubing the Star of David on the walls of homes.

Tactics such as burning orchards, blocking roads, rioting and stoning have become a routine part of the settlers' arsenal in their attacks on Palestinians. Police and soldiers are also being targeted amid lingering bitterness after clashes between the settlers and security forces when Israel removed its settlements from Gaza in 2005.

The settlers' aim is to deter the government from dismantling settlements in the West Bank, which Israel could be required to give up if a peace deal is struck with the Palestinians.

Elyakim Haetzni, a founding father of the settler movement, warned of civil war if Israel attempted to remove more settlements from the West Bank. He said that about 100,000 Israelis were ready to fight for the land. 'Every clash between the settlers and the police, the police get a beating and the army doesn't want to be involved any more. A great number of them are religious,' he said...'

jlew24asu wrote:

how about a jewish guy, mid 40s, married, 3 children. he moved to Israel from Poland. he moves into a single family home in occupied land. he, or his family, have never spit, yelled at, or beat up any Palestinian.

is he and his family a valid target?

I answered this question above. My answer was 'no'. But he and his family still need to get the fuck out because they have no right to be there.

soulsinging

Byrnzie wrote:

I answered this question above. My answer was 'no'. But he and his family still need to get the fuck out because they have no right to be there.

How is that different from what we've been saying for the last 20 pages?

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Hamas must renounce violence, and then Israel - being the benevolent, civilized nation that it is - will follow suit and stop 'retaliating'.

jlew24asu wrote:

yes. thats what I'm saying. thats just a hopeful guess. and, in my opinion, worth a shot for Hamas. the alternative (firing rockets into Israel) has not done them any good.

jlew24asu wrote:

yes that is what I'm saying. except the part about Israel being a benevolent civilized peaceful nation. I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE.

Thanks for making that correction, I think.

ajedigecko

holy shit....................that was a long read.

it would be interesting to sit around a camp fire and discuss this topic.

i can see it now.......everyone smiling and informing each other that their marshmellow is burning.

NoK

jlew24asu wrote:

rocket attacks worked? how? what did they accomplish? you said you dont understand how someone could want Palestinians to stop attacks. well call me crazy, but that means you want them to continue. I'm not misquoting you.

Do you actually read what has been posted or you just copy paste your replies. I just told you the attacks (not rocket attacks, previous attacks) WORKED by driving the israelis out of gaza because they could not sustain an internal occupation of Gaza. The attacks won the Palestinians their freedom INSIDE Gaza so the next point is to win their EXTERNAL freedom. Can I make this point any clearer?

The same occurred for Hizbullah in Lebanon in 2000.

jlew24asu wrote:

again, are you not suggesting the rocket attacks should continue? by all means, correct me if I'm wrong. you really seem to think they work. personally I think its fucking moronic for them to do so. that will just bring more death and destruction.

No this is not what I suggested. My suggestions for the Palestinians of Gaza is to try and smuggle weapons and arm up as much as they can then build a strong military DEFENSE of Gaza without attacking the israelis. I DO NOT SUGGEST THEY LAY DOWN THEIR ARMS. That would be fucking moronic.

jlew24asu wrote:

according to some reports, the "ceasefire" was broken when Israel found Hamas digging a tunnel into Israel. are you really shocked Israel tried to stop that from happening? I'm not.

You do realise that if the israelis did not have such a harsh blockade on Gaza EVEN DURING THE FUCKING CEASEFIRE there would not be a need for tunnels? The israelis while maintaining such a blockade on Gaza where violating the ceasefire agreement EVERYDAY. Get it?

jlew24asu wrote:

and guess what, EVERYTIME Israel launches airstrikes, their excuse is to "stop bombing making factories" or a Hamas military installation, etc etc. my suggestion is for Hamas to stop giving Israel targets. I know you think my suggestion of peace is pointless but its really not.

Its pointless because the zionist movement does not want peace. Their ideology is to take over all the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river. Their actions in this past fucking century have proved this. they will not stop till they occupy all of the West Bank. Which part of that did you not get?

jlew24asu wrote:

the US will stop supporting Israel if attacks Hamas (after Hamas has laid down its arms and said all attacks on Israel will stop). you can point to the 70s all you want but times are different now.

Hahahahahahhahahha your fucking kidding me right? You act like the US government can be held to a high moral standard hahahahahha funniest thing I've heard all week. Thank you.

jlew24asu wrote:

rocket attacks DO NOTHING to help the Palestinians.

I agree with this. The current rocket attacks do nothing but harm the Palestinian cause yet you fail to understand that a population squeezed to breaking point will act out. So they must be forgiven if they send out a rocket or two in retaliation. Its not like they sent out two nuclear warheads because someone bombed a military base of theirs. Palestinians laying down their arms is foolish. Palestinians at this point in time attempting to fight the israelis 1 on 1 is also foolish.

jlew24asu wrote:

first of all, dont answer shit for me. second of all, I did answer your question.

Actually you didn't. You said it would be a good idea if they lay down their arms. I asked what it would get them? You think it would get them a Palestinian state it wont. They'll lose the little pieces they have left.