Gaza Baby Killers

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have a clue how I feel

[/ QUOTE ]
This can be true only if you've dishonestly expressed your feelings in your many, many posts on this topic.

[ QUOTE ]
, and I've never said any of the things you suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you don't think the U.S. should continue to support Israel's occupation of the territories through violent means, including the provisioning of arms? So you agree with me that the U.S. should enact an aid embargo to Israel until it stops terrorizing people and stealing their land? Why didn't you say so?

[ QUOTE ]
I think the intentional killing of children by anyone is a horrendous crime

[/ QUOTE ]
So when have you ever criticized, much less condemned, Israel for the intentional killing of children, as documented by countelss journalists and human rights groups?

[ QUOTE ]
One of the many differences between you and I is that I can see the difference between (a) intentionally, specifically murdering a woman and her children, and (b) killing a terrorist leader (who is responible for the killing of many innocents), and in the process harming innocent people (including children).

[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you get the impression that Israel manages to kill a "terrorist leader" every time its tanks and troops intentionally fire upon and kill children? You're just making this up, aren't you?

[Gamblor]

The documentary film, Jenin: Massacring Truth, debuted on Global TV in Canada last night. The film addresses the grossly irresponsible world media coverage of the IDF's 2002 Jenin incursion, which left an indelible stain on world opinion of Israel.

The film includes this revealing exchange between filmmaker Martin Himel and Dr. Tim Benson, founder of the British editorial cartoonists' society that honored the Sharon-eating-babies cartoon with its 2003 'Cartoon of the Year':

Sharon Cartoon

Himel: My question to you is, why, in all these (cartoons) don't we see Sharon and Arafat eating babies?

Benson: Maybe because Jews don't issue fatwas.

Himel: What do you mean by that?

Benson: Well, if you upset an Islamic or Muslim group, as you know, fatwas can be issued by Ayatollahs and such, and maybe it's at the back of each cartoonist's mind, that they could be in trouble if they do so.

Himel: If they do what?

Benson: If they depict, uh, say, an Arab leader in the same manner.

Himel: Then they could suffer?

Benson: Then they could suffer death, couldn't they?

Benson's statement is an open admission that Arab/Palestinian intimidation produces an anti-Israel bias among western journalists.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
If Israelis prevent, say, 95% of intended Palestinian suicide bombing attacks, it means the Palestinians were really trying to kill 20 times as many Israelis as actually were killed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nonsense. If true, Israel is guilty of attempted genocide based on the number of shells and rounds fired (3 million during the first weeks of the intifada), including all the "misses." You're ignoring the likelihood that the terrorists on both sides realize that some of their attacks will fail and "intend" a certain number of deaths in light of this inevitability.

[Gamblor]

ou're ignoring the likelihood that the terrorists on both sides realize that some of their attacks will fail and "intend" a certain number of deaths in light of this inevitability.

That's the weakest argument you've ever come up with.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

If somehow there would be a guarantee that anti-semitism among Arab nations would be eradicated forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in other words, No.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Murder by definition requires intent. Israel doesn't murder Palestinians - they murder terrorists. Normal Palestinians don't have much to worry about if they'd stop aiding and abetting terrorists.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's beyond silly. Intent, by legal definition, can be transferred. In other words, if Gilbert Godfried is standing in a crowded room and I intend to shoot him (perfectly justified by anyone's standards), but miss and kill someone else that would still be murder. Your argument is that essentially I could mow down the whole room because I only "intended" to kill the one person.

[Gamblor]

If somehow there would be a guarantee that anti-semitism among Arab nations would be eradicated forever.

So, in other words, No.

Of course my demand that Jews not be persecuted because of their religions was obnoxiously out of line and unreasonable.

[MMMMMM]

No, because Israelis are trying to kill militants while Palestinians are trying to kill any Israeli they can. Therefore the Palestinian position is the less moral. If Palestinians targeted Israeli soldiers and politial leaders instead of civilians I would not be saying this. Who is being targeted makes immense difference, morally speaking.

[elwoodblues]

I didn't say it was unreasonable to expect no discrimination. But you want:
a "guarantee" - how to enforce that one

that "anti-semitism" - not discrimination --- there's an important difference between anti-semitism (the belief) and discrimination (the action)

"among Arab nations" - how can Palestinians speak on behalf of Arab nations and be responsible for the actions of other nations?

"eradicated forever" - in theory that one's great, but forever is an awfully long time


You are asking that they guarantee(on behalf of themselves and other nations) not to be anti-semitic forever. I stand by my statement: In other words, No.

[Chris Alger]

Now you're shifting to the tired argument that the U.S. should support Israel because its terrorism, while deadlier, is grounded in less evil intentiontions, or so Israel says. So you've dropped the silly argument that failed attempted terrorism by Palestinian killings should count as "kills" while Israel's failed attempts should not be.

[ QUOTE ]
No, because Israelis are trying to kill militants

[/ QUOTE ]
In other words, "No" because all the children that Israel shoots deliberately, intentionally at point blank range or by snipers with telescpic sights must be presumed accidental and collateral because Israel says they are. "Don't bother me with facts, I've read the propaganda."

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore the Palestinian position is the less moral.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's you making your incredible dumb argument for the thousandth time without even a clue as to how dumb it is: even if Israeli killing of innocents is indefinslby immoral, I'll support it because it's not as bad as Palestinian killing of innocents. In other words, what is immoral becomes moral if something else is even worse, regardless of the lack of any connection between the two. If you were on the Charles Manson jury youd say: sure, he's bad, but Stalin was so much worse that we must acquit and send him back on the streets with a full clip of ammo, which we should pay for. Otherwise, we'll be guilty of "moral relativism." But Manson and Stalin had no connection, you say. Just so. And of the 3,000 or so Palestinians killed by Israel since Sept. 2000 only a small fraction of those were even armed and less than a handful of those were "terrorists" or "suicide bombers." The rest were unarmed civilians and "militants," meaning anyone willing to pick up a rifle and defend his home from external aggression, murdered along with their familes by outside invaders, terrorists, bent on stealing their land and lives, on subjugating and crushing them for being members of the "wrong" nation.

The simple concept of condemning all terrorism and refusing to support or apologize for either is beyond your intellectual ken. You find the "lesser" terrorism, support it, and think you're moral superior for doing so.