People on this very board talk about overthrowing the government all the time. Yes, it's ok. Now if you're planning some sort of violent terrorist act, you're going to jail, as you would in any country on the planet. But between the militias and other nuts we have around here, and the heated rhetoric of some of the loonier Tea Party people, yes, you can talk about overthrowing the government all you want.
Sure, it turned into a clusterfuck. But NOBODY said their march was illegal. Neo-nazi websites are all over the web and frequented by many. You can't go to jail for it.
Looks like you're right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States
'The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[36] and incitement to riot.[37] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[38] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities. See, e.g., Yates v. United States (1957), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
Yup, never doubted me for a second. I damn well better know this shit after 3 years of law school!
No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not o.k for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.
You're joking right? Jlew has been defending Israel's crimes on this message board for as long as I can remember. He try's to justify the occupation and the settlements by saying that the land is disputed. He supported Israel's bombardment of Lebanon in 2006. The list goes on and on.
Edit: If this new board allowed me to dig up his earlier posts then I'd have a field day.
No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not ok for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.
You're focusing on "killing" Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing consists of more than just killing Palestinians, it also consists of stealing their land and displacing them - something jlew has defended. jlew's tactics in arguing this issue is actually very clear than he's trying to place plenty of the blame on the Palestinians, to the point of even distracting people from the real issue, ie. Israel's stubbornness to abide by international law.
by jlew's definition of "disputed land," if I were to argue that France should still be under Nazi occupation, that would make the land "disputed."
No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not ok for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.
its par for the course for him. if I dont agree with everything he says as well as be a staunch supporter of Hamas and the killing of Israeli civilians, I somehow become a defender of Israel.
I'll say it loud and clear (yet again) for the ignorant few who refuse to listen...
You're focusing on "killing" Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing consists of more than just killing Palestinians, it also consists of stealing their land and displacing them - something jlew has defended. jlew's tactics in arguing this issue is actually very clear than he's trying to place plenty of the blame on the Palestinians, to the point of even distracting people from the real issue, ie. Israel's stubbornness to abide by international law.
ONE MORE TIME - I DO NOT SUPPORT OR DEFEND ISRAEL.
and guess what, HAMAS is part of the problem too. you know why? I'll repeat myself yet again...because they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.
No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not o.k for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.
You're joking right? Jlew has been defending Israel's crimes on this message board for as long as I can remember. He try's to justify the occupation and the settlements by saying that the land is disputed. He supported Israel's bombardment of Lebanon in 2006. The list goes on and on.
Edit: If this new board allowed me to dig up his earlier posts then I'd have a field day.
you fucking people are a joke. I'm not trying to justify anything Israel does. you just cant seem to grasp the definition of the word dispute. thats not my problem.
and I didnt support the war against Lebanon. how about you stop making shit up, its really starting to piss me off. we've been cool until now. now you crossed the line with outright lies about me.
No. I fail to see where he says it's ok for Israelis to murder Palestinians. He says Palestinians shouldn't murder Israelis... it's a logical fallacy (very much in line with your intellectual fireworks in this thread thus far) to claim that that somehow means he feels the opposite is acceptable. In fact, he has stated that it is not ok for the Israelis to kill Palestinians either.
its par for the course for him. if I dont agree with everything he says as well as be a staunch supporter of Hamas and the killing of Israeli civilians, I somehow become a defender of Israel.
"You're either with us, or you're with the [Israelis]"
-Byrnzie
Come to think... that sentiment seems kinda familiar...
you fucking people are a joke. I'm not trying to justify anything Israel does. and I didnt support the war against Lebanon.
If the mods hadn't deleted all of your earlier posts I'd drag up about 100 comments of yours that prove my point. You've been defending Israel and attempting to justify it's crimes for as long as I've been posting here.
going back to 1967 borders is impractical and isn't going to happen.
Michael Neumann:
'It is sometimes alleged that complete withdrawal from the occupied territories is "impracticable" because the facts on the ground are too deeply entrenched: Israeli settlements are just too extensive and important to uproot. One can hardly take this seriously. If it was "practicable" for hundreds of thousands of stateless Palestinians to leave their homes, why is this impracticable for half as many Israeli citizens in far more comfortable and peaceful circumstances? Throughout modern history, from the waves of U.S immigration to the peaceful post-World War II population transfers, there have been far greater shifts than this movement of a few miles. In many cases, if the settlers prefer, they can simply return to their homes in the United States. "It's impraticable" seems here a stand-in for "Aw, gee, these towns are too nice to let the Arabs have them".
The significance of the withdrawal alternative is not that it represents a just solution. Arguably, justice would require much more than that - not only the abolition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, but a full right of return, with compensation, for the Palestinians, and the eviction of Jewish inhabitants occupying Palestinian property. But the existence of the withdrawal alternative effectively completes the case against Israel. It's willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. In the first place, Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'
You're focusing on "killing" Palestinians. Ethnic cleansing consists of more than just killing Palestinians, it also consists of stealing their land and displacing them - something jlew has defended. jlew's tactics in arguing this issue is actually very clear than he's trying to place plenty of the blame on the Palestinians, to the point of even distracting people from the real issue, ie. Israel's stubbornness to abide by international law.
ONE MORE TIME - I DO NOT SUPPORT OR DEFEND ISRAEL.
and guess what, HAMAS is part of the problem too. you know why? I'll repeat myself yet again...because they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.
do you agree with this statement: Israel has the sole power to bring about the two-state solution, since Hamas and the entire world support such a solution, but Israel blocks it by not withdrawing to the 1967 borders. I hope that sentence is not too complicated for you. Good luck with it. Other than that, if Israel is the one problem affecting the two-state solution, then I would say ISRAEL is the problem, not HAMAS which is just in its moment of fame, like Hezbollah once was. You do realize that Hamas was established in the 1980s right? You do know that the Palestinians have been arguing for that land since 1967 (moreso 1969), which is BEFORE Hamas' existence came about. You do realize that Hamas came about AS A RESULT of Israel's refusal to abide by international law and recognize the rights of the Palestinians, right? You do know that this "result" would not have come about if it were not for the source, ie. the "problem" which is ISRAEL.
logical reasoning, let me know how you feel about it.
by jlew's definition of "disputed land," if I were to argue that France should still be under Nazi occupation, that would make the land "disputed."
guess what genius. during WWII, the land in France WAS under dispute. that must mean I support the Nazi's right!!!!!!
yeah. because half the world sided with the Nazis, and half the world didn't, but even the other half agreed the land was under dispute. HOWEVER, when the ENTIRE world says the land is undisputed and it rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, but the Israelis are the ONLY ones claiming it is under 'dispute' then YEAH i'd say you side with Israel, against the entire world.
So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'
this is what i've been saying for some time now.
Israeli's have a right to defend themselves-just not with force. their self-defense can be achieved by leaving the occupied territories. If peace is the goal, (which Israel claims its is) then get the fuck out. people will stop throwing rocks at your tanks and setting off bottle rockets.
well, the man is holding the boy while ducking and running. how can you question he's not using him as a human shield?
Again, the first clip shows a guy pushing a little kid away and pointing towards the group of people as in telling him to get the fuck back and stand with them. I realise you did not comment about this one but I thought I'll remind you since you posted it.
The second clip shows a boy crouching in the middle of road. If you watch it again you will realise the fighter DUCKS down when he gets to where the boy is actually crouching. This leads me to conclude that the fighter knows he can get shot around the area where the boy is crouching. So he grabs the little boy and drags him back to the group of people. So tell me why would he run to the boy get himself in danger then just drag him 5 metres to a group of people? Not to mention keeping the top half of his body exposed to bullet fire.. The logical explanation is that he is trying to get the boy out of a harms way but a biased TV station could try to push this in their favour and post a SHORTENED clip then label it HAMAS USES HUMAN SHIELDS. If you search the net you will find pictures of IDF soldiers CHAINING 10 year old Palestinian boys to their armoured jeeps.
since when do children (on their own) decide that they are ready to die for the cause?
outlaw has already mentioned this but I will repeat. What the guy is saying is not literal. You can try to use the language barrier as an argument but if you do don't post something in Arabic in the first place.
half the world sided with the Nazis, and half the world didn't, but even the other half agreed the land was under dispute. HOWEVER, when the ENTIRE world says the land is undisputed and it rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, but the Israelis are the ONLY ones claiming it is under 'dispute' then YEAH i'd say you side with Israel, against the entire world.
Actually, I don't think anyone disputed that France belonged to the French. Even the Nazis knew that the country wasn't theirs. There was no real dispute about it at all.
Either way, it was as a result of the crimes of world war II that the U.N was created - to stop such crimes of state from re-occurring. Zionist Israel is a signatory to the U.N, and therefore it is obliged to abide by it's laws. Unfortunately it's been behaving like a rogue state for the past 60 years, not too dissimilar to the Nazi regime in it's messianic militarism, and ethnic cleansing. This shit needs to stop, for Israel's sake as well as that of it's Arab neighbours.
half the world sided with the Nazis, and half the world didn't, but even the other half agreed the land was under dispute. HOWEVER, when the ENTIRE world says the land is undisputed and it rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, but the Israelis are the ONLY ones claiming it is under 'dispute' then YEAH i'd say you side with Israel, against the entire world.
Actually, I don't think anyone disputed that France belonged to the French. Even the Nazis knew that the country wasn't theirs. There was no real dispute about it at all.
no shit they knew it wasnt theirs. they stole and CLAIMED it as their own. had Hilter won the war and had his way, France would not belong to the French. Hilter and the French both claimed the land as their own. the dispute was settled during something called WWII.
Either way, it was as a result of the crimes of world war II that the U.N was created - to stop such crimes of state from re-occurring. Zionist Israel is a signatory to the U.N, and therefore it is obliged to abide by it's laws. Unfortunately it's been behaving like a rogue state for the past 60 years, not too dissimilar to the Nazi regime in it's messianic militarism, and ethnic cleansing. This shit needs to stop, for Israel's sake as well as that of it's Arab neighbours.
yup, Israeli has ovens built to burn millions of people, they are just waiting for the right time I guess.
well, the man is holding the boy while ducking and running. how can you question he's not using him as a human shield?
Again, the first clip shows a guy pushing a little kid away and pointing towards the group of people as in telling him to get the fuck back and stand with them. I realise you did not comment about this one but I thought I'll remind you since you posted it.
The second clip shows a boy crouching in the middle of road. If you watch it again you will realise the fighter DUCKS down when he gets to where the boy is actually crouching. This leads me to conclude that the fighter knows he can get shot around the area where the boy is crouching. So he grabs the little boy and drags him back to the group of people. So tell me why would he run to the boy get himself in danger then just drag him 5 metres to a group of people? Not to mention keeping the top half of his body exposed to bullet fire.. The logical explanation is that he is trying to get the boy out of a harms way but a biased TV station could try to push this in their favour and post a SHORTENED clip then label it HAMAS USES HUMAN SHIELDS. If you search the net you will find pictures of IDF soldiers CHAINING 10 year old Palestinian boys to their armoured jeeps.
Does that explain it to you better?
yea, it exaplins that you can totally make up shit to suit your agenda. well done
since when do children (on their own) decide that they are ready to die for the cause?
outlaw has already mentioned this but I will repeat. What the guy is saying is not literal. You can try to use the language barrier as an argument but if you do don't post something in Arabic in the first place.[/quote]
The second clip is translated loosely. Arabic is my second language and I can assure you what the guy was saying was Palestinians as a whole.. women.. children].. elderly.. fighters have experienced death so much they are ready to die for the cause.. and they have become a human shield to the resistance[/i].. its not literal..
children arent ready to die for the cause. they are CHILDREN.
I find it hilarious how you seem to be taking some type of moral high ground here. while at the same time you are spread lies about me on this board which is far worse then anything I have said.
second all of, you cry like a little girl when I called you a hypocrite. while you are googling the word dispute, I suggest you also look up the word hypocritical. its not an insult. on a fact of the way you talk around here. you spend 4 pages of this thread talking about China and censorship and then have the balls to blame OTHERS for derailed it. you know what thats called? HYPOCRISY
do you agree with this statement: Israel has the sole power to bring about the two-state solution, since Hamas and the entire world support such a solution, but Israel blocks it by not withdrawing to the 1967 borders. I hope that sentence is not too complicated for you. Good luck with it. Other than that, if Israel is the one problem affecting the two-state solution, then I would say ISRAEL is the problem, not HAMAS which is just in its moment of fame, like Hezbollah once was. You do realize that Hamas was established in the 1980s right? You do know that the Palestinians have been arguing for that land since 1967 (moreso 1969), which is BEFORE Hamas' existence came about. You do realize that Hamas came about AS A RESULT of Israel's refusal to abide by international law and recognize the rights of the Palestinians, right? You do know that this "result" would not have come about if it were not for the source, ie. the "problem" which is ISRAEL.
logical reasoning, let me know how you feel about it.
heres some logical reasoning for you. I've only said this nine times but since you can not seem to wrap your head around it, I'll repeat it again. not sure what else I can do.
Hamas is part of the PROBLEM because.....they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.
yeah. because half the world sided with the Nazis, and half the world didn't, but even the other half agreed the land was under dispute. HOWEVER, when the ENTIRE world says the land is undisputed and it rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, but the Israelis are the ONLY ones claiming it is under 'dispute' then YEAH i'd say you side with Israel, against the entire world.
you only need two parties to have a dispute. those two parties would be the Israelis and the Palestinians. they both want the same land. its being disputed.
this somehow translates into me being a supporter of Israel and a supporter of ethic cleansing.
'...Those who invoke the suicide bombings against mostly Israeli civilians to infer the righteousness of the Israeli cause live in a twilight of psychic denial of an otherwise unambiguous historical record: the state of Israel was founded on terrorism and ethnic cleansing.
The suicide bombings inside Israel, the first of which only occurred in 1994, after 25 years of occupation, is only a side show. That is a symptom and long way from the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
There will never be a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until Israel takes responsibility, under U.N. Resolution 194, calling for reparation of the Palestinian refugees, and recognizes the immense suffering it caused at that time. We need also to recognize the US is giving unqualified moral support to a state that is based on racial purity and one that is intrinsically expansionist.'
Hamas is part of the PROBLEM because.....they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.
It's fortunate that you weren't around during the Apartheid era of South Africa. I imagine you would have regarded the ANC as 'part of the PROBLEM' and focused all of your attention on their attacks upon the whites. You then would have cried wolf and claimed that you were impartial.
Hamas is part of the PROBLEM because.....they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.
And what does Hamas targeting civilians have to do with the illegal occupation?
nothing. I didnt say it did.
the problem with you is, you dont see targeting and killing Israeli civilians part of the problem. so you keep diverting my comments to something TOTALLY different.
do you agree with this statement: Israel has the sole power to bring about the two-state solution, since Hamas and the entire world support such a solution, but Israel blocks it by not withdrawing to the 1967 borders. I hope that sentence is not too complicated for you. Good luck with it. Other than that, if Israel is the one problem affecting the two-state solution, then I would say ISRAEL is the problem, not HAMAS which is just in its moment of fame, like Hezbollah once was. You do realize that Hamas was established in the 1980s right? You do know that the Palestinians have been arguing for that land since 1967 (moreso 1969), which is BEFORE Hamas' existence came about. You do realize that Hamas came about AS A RESULT of Israel's refusal to abide by international law and recognize the rights of the Palestinians, right? You do know that this "result" would not have come about if it were not for the source, ie. the "problem" which is ISRAEL.
logical reasoning, let me know how you feel about it.
heres some logical reasoning for you. I've only said this nine times but since you can not seem to wrap your head around it, I'll repeat it again. not sure what else I can do.
Hamas is part of the PROBLEM because.....they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.
yeah. because half the world sided with the Nazis, and half the world didn't, but even the other half agreed the land was under dispute. HOWEVER, when the ENTIRE world says the land is undisputed and it rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, but the Israelis are the ONLY ones claiming it is under 'dispute' then YEAH i'd say you side with Israel, against the entire world.
you only need two parties to have a dispute. those two parties would be the Israelis and the Palestinians. they both want the same land. its being disputed.
this somehow translates into me being a supporter of Israel and a supporter of ethic cleansing.
fucking classic.
jlew24asu, do you believe the land rightfully belongs to the Palestinians? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Hamas is part of the PROBLEM because.....they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.
It's fortunate that you weren't around during the Apartheid era of South Africa. I imagine you would have regarded the ANC as 'part of the PROBLEM' and focused all of your attention on their attacks upon the whites. You then would have cried wolf and claimed that you were impartial.
if the ANC targeted and killing innocent civilians, then yes. they absolutely were part of the problem.
I find it hilarious how you seem to be taking some type of moral high ground here. while at the same time you are spread lies about me on this board which is far worse then anything I have said.
Lies? I said that you supported Israel's bombardment of Lebanon, which you did. I remember perfectly well that you argued in favour of Israel until you were blue in the face. You must have a shorter memory than me.
children arent ready to die for the cause. they are CHILDREN.
You speak like you have some kind of authority. I know Palestinians first hand and even the 10 year old kids will tell you to your face they are ready to die for their country. The fact that you cannot comprehend that doesn't mean it is wrong. It only means you cannot comprehend that.
Have you seen the little boys that run in front of tanks and throw rocks at them? No one forces them to do that. When a population is subjected to the worst kind of treatment even the children will fight. Just because you've lived an Americana lifestyle and cannot understand where they are coming from does not mean you are right.
I find it hilarious how you seem to be taking some type of moral high ground here. while at the same time you are spread lies about me on this board which is far worse then anything I have said.
Lies? I said that you supported Israel's bombardment of Lebanon, which you did. I remember perfectly well that you argued in favour of Israel until you were blue in the face. You must have a shorter memory than me.
yes lies. I do not and have never supported Israel's war in Lebanon. I simply understand why it happened. that doesnt mean I supported it. get it? probably not. I've lost all respect for you for spreading outright slander of me. all you have done recently is try to imply I somehow support the killing of Palestinian people. (and now the Lebanese).
but thats how you play the game. you have no shame.
Comments
Yup, never doubted me for a second. I damn well better know this shit after 3 years of law school!
You're joking right? Jlew has been defending Israel's crimes on this message board for as long as I can remember. He try's to justify the occupation and the settlements by saying that the land is disputed. He supported Israel's bombardment of Lebanon in 2006. The list goes on and on.
Edit: If this new board allowed me to dig up his earlier posts then I'd have a field day.
by jlew's definition of "disputed land," if I were to argue that France should still be under Nazi occupation, that would make the land "disputed."
its par for the course for him. if I dont agree with everything he says as well as be a staunch supporter of Hamas and the killing of Israeli civilians, I somehow become a defender of Israel.
I'll say it loud and clear (yet again) for the ignorant few who refuse to listen...
I DO NOT SUPPORT ISRAEL.
ONE MORE TIME - I DO NOT SUPPORT OR DEFEND ISRAEL.
and guess what, HAMAS is part of the problem too. you know why? I'll repeat myself yet again...because they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.
guess what genius. during WWII, the land in France WAS under dispute. that must mean I support the Nazi's right!!!!!!
you fucking people are a joke. I'm not trying to justify anything Israel does. you just cant seem to grasp the definition of the word dispute. thats not my problem.
and I didnt support the war against Lebanon. how about you stop making shit up, its really starting to piss me off. we've been cool until now. now you crossed the line with outright lies about me.
you mean you finally took your head out of your own ass?
***standing O***
"You're either with us, or you're with the [Israelis]"
-Byrnzie
Come to think... that sentiment seems kinda familiar...
If the mods hadn't deleted all of your earlier posts I'd drag up about 100 comments of yours that prove my point. You've been defending Israel and attempting to justify it's crimes for as long as I've been posting here.
Just the same old Jlew.
Michael Neumann:
'It is sometimes alleged that complete withdrawal from the occupied territories is "impracticable" because the facts on the ground are too deeply entrenched: Israeli settlements are just too extensive and important to uproot. One can hardly take this seriously. If it was "practicable" for hundreds of thousands of stateless Palestinians to leave their homes, why is this impracticable for half as many Israeli citizens in far more comfortable and peaceful circumstances? Throughout modern history, from the waves of U.S immigration to the peaceful post-World War II population transfers, there have been far greater shifts than this movement of a few miles. In many cases, if the settlers prefer, they can simply return to their homes in the United States. "It's impraticable" seems here a stand-in for "Aw, gee, these towns are too nice to let the Arabs have them".
The significance of the withdrawal alternative is not that it represents a just solution. Arguably, justice would require much more than that - not only the abolition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, but a full right of return, with compensation, for the Palestinians, and the eviction of Jewish inhabitants occupying Palestinian property. But the existence of the withdrawal alternative effectively completes the case against Israel. It's willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. In the first place, Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'
logical reasoning, let me know how you feel about it.
yeah. because half the world sided with the Nazis, and half the world didn't, but even the other half agreed the land was under dispute. HOWEVER, when the ENTIRE world says the land is undisputed and it rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, but the Israelis are the ONLY ones claiming it is under 'dispute' then YEAH i'd say you side with Israel, against the entire world.
this is what i've been saying for some time now.
Israeli's have a right to defend themselves-just not with force. their self-defense can be achieved by leaving the occupied territories. If peace is the goal, (which Israel claims its is) then get the fuck out. people will stop throwing rocks at your tanks and setting off bottle rockets.
Again, the first clip shows a guy pushing a little kid away and pointing towards the group of people as in telling him to get the fuck back and stand with them. I realise you did not comment about this one but I thought I'll remind you since you posted it.
The second clip shows a boy crouching in the middle of road. If you watch it again you will realise the fighter DUCKS down when he gets to where the boy is actually crouching. This leads me to conclude that the fighter knows he can get shot around the area where the boy is crouching. So he grabs the little boy and drags him back to the group of people. So tell me why would he run to the boy get himself in danger then just drag him 5 metres to a group of people? Not to mention keeping the top half of his body exposed to bullet fire.. The logical explanation is that he is trying to get the boy out of a harms way but a biased TV station could try to push this in their favour and post a SHORTENED clip then label it HAMAS USES HUMAN SHIELDS. If you search the net you will find pictures of IDF soldiers CHAINING 10 year old Palestinian boys to their armoured jeeps.
Does that explain it to you better?
outlaw has already mentioned this but I will repeat. What the guy is saying is not literal. You can try to use the language barrier as an argument but if you do don't post something in Arabic in the first place.
Actually, I don't think anyone disputed that France belonged to the French. Even the Nazis knew that the country wasn't theirs. There was no real dispute about it at all.
Either way, it was as a result of the crimes of world war II that the U.N was created - to stop such crimes of state from re-occurring. Zionist Israel is a signatory to the U.N, and therefore it is obliged to abide by it's laws. Unfortunately it's been behaving like a rogue state for the past 60 years, not too dissimilar to the Nazi regime in it's messianic militarism, and ethnic cleansing. This shit needs to stop, for Israel's sake as well as that of it's Arab neighbours.
no shit they knew it wasnt theirs. they stole and CLAIMED it as their own. had Hilter won the war and had his way, France would not belong to the French. Hilter and the French both claimed the land as their own. the dispute was settled during something called WWII.
yup, Israeli has ovens built to burn millions of people, they are just waiting for the right time I guess.
outlaw has already mentioned this but I will repeat. What the guy is saying is not literal. You can try to use the language barrier as an argument but if you do don't post something in Arabic in the first place.[/quote]
I based my response of YOURS....
'
children arent ready to die for the cause. they are CHILDREN.
I find it hilarious how you seem to be taking some type of moral high ground here. while at the same time you are spread lies about me on this board which is far worse then anything I have said.
second all of, you cry like a little girl when I called you a hypocrite. while you are googling the word dispute, I suggest you also look up the word hypocritical. its not an insult. on a fact of the way you talk around here. you spend 4 pages of this thread talking about China and censorship and then have the balls to blame OTHERS for derailed it. you know what thats called? HYPOCRISY
heres some logical reasoning for you. I've only said this nine times but since you can not seem to wrap your head around it, I'll repeat it again. not sure what else I can do.
Hamas is part of the PROBLEM because.....they deliberately target and kill Israeli civilians.
I really do not know how much clearer I can be.
you only need two parties to have a dispute. those two parties would be the Israelis and the Palestinians. they both want the same land. its being disputed.
this somehow translates into me being a supporter of Israel and a supporter of ethic cleansing.
fucking classic.
And what does Hamas targeting civilians have to do with the illegal occupation?
http://www.counterpunch.org/martin05132004.html
'...Those who invoke the suicide bombings against mostly Israeli civilians to infer the righteousness of the Israeli cause live in a twilight of psychic denial of an otherwise unambiguous historical record: the state of Israel was founded on terrorism and ethnic cleansing.
The suicide bombings inside Israel, the first of which only occurred in 1994, after 25 years of occupation, is only a side show. That is a symptom and long way from the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
There will never be a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until Israel takes responsibility, under U.N. Resolution 194, calling for reparation of the Palestinian refugees, and recognizes the immense suffering it caused at that time. We need also to recognize the US is giving unqualified moral support to a state that is based on racial purity and one that is intrinsically expansionist.'
It's fortunate that you weren't around during the Apartheid era of South Africa. I imagine you would have regarded the ANC as 'part of the PROBLEM' and focused all of your attention on their attacks upon the whites. You then would have cried wolf and claimed that you were impartial.
nothing. I didnt say it did.
the problem with you is, you dont see targeting and killing Israeli civilians part of the problem. so you keep diverting my comments to something TOTALLY different.
yes.
do you believe the American southwest rightfully belongs to native Indians? a yes or no will suffice.
if the ANC targeted and killing innocent civilians, then yes. they absolutely were part of the problem.
Lies? I said that you supported Israel's bombardment of Lebanon, which you did. I remember perfectly well that you argued in favour of Israel until you were blue in the face. You must have a shorter memory than me.
I answered your question. I didnt know I wasnt allowed to ask you one.
Hahaha. Is that all you have to say? Pathetic. You posted bullshit and got owned. Well done.
You speak like you have some kind of authority. I know Palestinians first hand and even the 10 year old kids will tell you to your face they are ready to die for their country. The fact that you cannot comprehend that doesn't mean it is wrong. It only means you cannot comprehend that.
Have you seen the little boys that run in front of tanks and throw rocks at them? No one forces them to do that. When a population is subjected to the worst kind of treatment even the children will fight. Just because you've lived an Americana lifestyle and cannot understand where they are coming from does not mean you are right.
yes lies. I do not and have never supported Israel's war in Lebanon. I simply understand why it happened. that doesnt mean I supported it. get it? probably not. I've lost all respect for you for spreading outright slander of me. all you have done recently is try to imply I somehow support the killing of Palestinian people. (and now the Lebanese).
but thats how you play the game. you have no shame.