quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Despite your smears, nobody except for Muslim terrorists enjoys "the slaughter of innocents". Again, Israel acts defensively. Hamas attacks civilian areas with primarily rocket fire, and Israel strikes the source of the barrage and invades to destroy the tunnels said rockets are smuggled through.

That innocents are killed is entirely on Hamas and their backers.

Total bullshit but I expect no less from you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


10-1 he doesn't own a passport and has never traveled outside of the USA -- much less learned a foreign language -- all credentials making him a Palinesque, Republican foreign policy expert.

Is is startling to see so many voters both curiosity and fact averse (don't read, travel, or try to get outside of their own comfort zone.)

Sanity, though, is mostly a dittohead for the Drudge Report and Fox News. Whatever they are saying, he parrots over here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Despite your smears, nobody except for Muslim terrorists enjoys "the slaughter of innocents". Again, Israel acts defensively. Hamas attacks civilian areas with primarily rocket fire, and Israel strikes the source of the barrage and invades to destroy the tunnels said rockets are smuggled through.

That innocents are killed is entirely on Hamas and their backers.

Total bullshit but I expect no less from you.

It's rather easy to call something bullshit, since it's just a word. It's a lot harder to demonstrate why Hamas isn't 100% morally responsible for firing rockets and embedding terrorists in the middle of civilian areas as well as why they're not morally responsible for converting many civilians into suicide bombers by offering bounties to their families as well as ideas about rewards in the afterlife. And when I say "harder," I mean logically impossible. But it is the most common leftist trope to simply take reasoned arguments, call them or their make a name and consider the matter closed. So your statement establishes that you are a leftist addicted to leftist tropes. Congratulations. You've convinced me of something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


10-1 he doesn't own a passport and has never traveled outside of the USA -- much less learned a foreign language -- all credentials making him a Palinesque, Republican foreign policy expert.

Is is startling to see so many voters both curiosity and fact averse (don't read, travel, or try to get outside of their own comfort zone.)

Sanity, though, is mostly a dittohead for the Drudge Report and Fox News. Whatever they are saying, he parrots over here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Despite your smears, nobody except for Muslim terrorists enjoys "the slaughter of innocents". Again, Israel acts defensively. Hamas attacks civilian areas with primarily rocket fire, and Israel strikes the source of the barrage and invades to destroy the tunnels said rockets are smuggled through.

That innocents are killed is entirely on Hamas and their backers.

Total bullshit but I expect no less from you.

It's rather easy to call something bullshit, since it's just a word. It's a lot harder to demonstrate why Hamas isn't 100% morally responsible for firing rockets and embedding terrorists in the middle of civilian areas as well as why they're not morally responsible for converting many civilians into suicide bombers by offering bounties to their families as well as ideas about rewards in the afterlife. And when I say "harder," I mean logically impossible. But it is the most common leftist trope to simply take reasoned arguments, call them or their make a name and consider the matter closed. So your statement establishes that you are a leftist addicted to leftist tropes. Congratulations. You've convinced me of something.

Are you as stupid as Sanity ?........ Did you not see the UN schools being bombed despite the UN letting the IDF refugees were in the buildings. Once could be construed as an accident but not repeatedly.

I am not a leftist, which just shows you know fuck all about world politics, at least in the UK.

What is true is your obnoxious notion that anyone who dares speak up regards the slaughter of civillians must be leftist. Like others you just continue to talk bollocks. Now you have convinced me of something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Despite your smears, nobody except for Muslim terrorists enjoys "the slaughter of innocents". Again, Israel acts defensively. Hamas attacks civilian areas with primarily rocket fire, and Israel strikes the source of the barrage and invades to destroy the tunnels said rockets are smuggled through.

That innocents are killed is entirely on Hamas and their backers.

Total bullshit but I expect no less from you.

It's rather easy to call something bullshit, since it's just a word. It's a lot harder to demonstrate why Hamas isn't 100% morally responsible for firing rockets and embedding terrorists in the middle of civilian areas as well as why they're not morally responsible for converting many civilians into suicide bombers by offering bounties to their families as well as ideas about rewards in the afterlife. And when I say "harder," I mean logically impossible. But it is the most common leftist trope to simply take reasoned arguments, call them or their make a name and consider the matter closed. So your statement establishes that you are a leftist addicted to leftist tropes. Congratulations. You've convinced me of something.

Are you as stupid as Sanity ?........ Did you not see the UN schools being bombed despite the UN letting the IDF refugees were in the buildings. Once could be construed as an accident but not repeatedly.

I am not a leftist, which just shows you know fuck all about world politics, at least in the UK.

What is true is your obnoxious notion that anyone who dares speak up regards the slaughter of civillians must be leftist. Like others you just continue to talk bollocks. Now you have convinced me of something.

Yes, I am as "stupid" as Sanity. Like him, I hold that moral responsibility lies with those who manipulate and use civilians for their own purposes, who lie and dissimulate using their own civilians as propaganda, who have for decades sent terrorist teams to attack Israeli civilians even in no state of war, who have broken every cease-fire ever established, etc.

Perhaps you're referring to this: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/08/03/was-a-un-school-in-gaza-really-bombed/

To believe the UN and hold it as being valid -- and which features luminaries such as Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and others on (now or previously) its human rights council -- is to believe the KKK when it talks about blacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Israel has the ability to take out the bad guys and destroy high priority targets without hurting civilians in the process. They have the technology.

Just curious, but exactly what "technology" would this be? Does it have to be sprinkled with pixie dust before being used? Because it sure as hell sounds like magic to me. There's no such thing as a weapon that's guaranteed to take out just the enemy. It doesn't exist. Anyone who tells you differently is a moron.

Actually this technology does exist. It's just a matter of finding the right delivery mechanism (clearing throat)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Name the countries and general dates of travel. Let's hear it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Name the countries and general dates of travel. Let's hear it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Name the countries and general dates of travel. Let's hear it.

Lick dog ass boy

Lets see it

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Dopey.

Are you suggesting a strike right outside the school gates was appropriate, given the IDF were informed the school housed civillians.

Do you even know how many school have been hit in recent weeks.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/03/israel-air-strike-un-school-gaza-rafah

Like I said, one could be called as a mistake, several ? well not so much. As for introducing the KKK into a debate on Palestine, the mind boggles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If that's the best you can do, subrosaDom, that is a pretty pathetic response. It contains a number of factual errors, such as:

quote:

Israeli does not target civilians to cause terror (as does Hamas) -- they do it to root out Hamas's terrorist infrastructure

Israeli General Gadi Eizenkot was quite specific that Israel does target civilians and civilian infrastructure : "From our perspective, these [civilian areas] are military bases. [...] Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah" A deliberate strategy of "harming the population", could it be any clearer? The enormous number of civilians killed and injured in Israel's current rampage in Gaza, with most independent estimates putting it at c75-80% or approx 1350 of the c1800 fatalities confirms the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Since I know you can read I know you know you are intentionally misrepresenting that quote.

He's saying Hezbollah is hiding amongst the civilian population so the IDF has to attack those civilians to get at Hezbollah.

If real lives weren't at stake, DKs post would rank as first class comedy. As it stands, it provides a revealing insight into the kind of intellectual gymnastics and double think necessary to maintain the kind of blind fanatical faith in Israel and its absolute inability to commit a mistake Dom Ken has displayed for as long as I have been posting here.

Even tho' the Israeli general specifically states that "harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah", DK insists this doesn't mean what it says. Even tho' DK states that "the IDF has to attack those civilians", which can only mean that the civilians are being deliberately targetted, DK wants us to believe that doesn't mean that they are deliberately targetting them. One wonders if DK wants us to believe that the IDF are "attacking' those civilians accidentally (!?)...... when he concedes they are being deliberately targetted to "get at Hezbollah". There is no defence in law or morality that I know of that allows the deliberate targetting of civilians. In some circumstances, one can make a case in law and morality for collateral harm against civilians but not deliberate targetting.

Buried the depths of his spin DK thus agrees that civilians are being deliberately targetted. The contradictions are to immense and glaring for any one to resolve. DK's tries to justify the deliberate targetting of civilians as it is the "only way to get at Hezbollah". Even this tenuous defence contains a massive lie - there are other ways of "getting at" Hezbollah or Hamas or whoever Israel's enemy de jour is. For Israel Palestinian lives carry no value so Palestinians are deliberately targetted and killed, sometimes for reasons vaguely related to some kind of military objective, and often times for no reason at all, such as the incident I documented in post #702.

The IDF is quite specific that all this is deliberate and planned, this is not some low level local commander making poor decisions on the ground. The deliberate targetting of civilians and civilian infrastructure - "This isn't a suggestion. It's a plan that has already been authorized." - is an integral part of the IDF's strategy approved at high level. So there is a degree of pre-meditation to these attacks on civilians. They are no accident, they are an integral part of the overall plan.

Even tho' DK is posting the double think and gibberish analysed above he has the stupendous audacity to accuse others of "intentional misrepresent[ations]" - while, as we have seen, he is busy doing exactly that himself. I wonder precisely how tenuous his relationship with reality is. If he really believes what he is asking us to believe, one must conclude that DK's nonsensical misrepresentations suggest that his relationship with reality is very tenuous indeed.

One should also note that DK makes no attempt whatsoever to deny the main charge levelled against the IDF - that it is a terrorist force. Whatever way we look at it, the IDF is deliberately targetting civilian and civilian infrastructure - we have their unambiguous word for it. And that makes the IDF a terrorist force by any reasonable understanding of the term 'terrorist'.

None of that is true. The civilian areas are the same as military bases. To attack the military, they must therefore target civilian areas, because there are no military-only areas. They don't target civilians qua civilians. They target military areas that have civilians in them because of Hamas's immorality. The IDF is therefore in no way a terrorist force. They are attacking Hamas's military bases buried amongst civilians. 100% Hamas's moral responsibility. 0% Israel's. DK is right. You are wrong.

Your interpretation is erroneous.

Please look closely at Gen Eizenkot's words: "Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah". He is not talking about attacking a military base, or even a military objective. Eizenkot specifies his goal as "restraining Nasrullah", the political head of Hezbollah. He chose the term "restraining" not 'killing' or 'eliminating'. Eizenkot is talking about achieving a political goal not a military one. He wants to "restrain" Nasrullah by inflicting terrible losses on the civilian population - "harming the population" - literally terrorising them into submission so that they beg Nasrullah to stop whatever he is doing that arouses Israeli displeasure.

His goal is political not military. His means of achieving his goal is deliberately target the civilian population and unleash massive firepower inflicting devastating losses in order to achieve the political goal of influencing Nasrullah. He is specific and unambiguous about all of this.

Nor is the some abstract academic discussion, some theoretical analysis. The entire world has just witnesses Eizenkot's words become reality in Gaza. Eizenkot's words are a 100% accurate prediction of the events we have just witnessed in Gaza. The rate of civilian casualties - all independent estimates I have seen put the civilian casualty rate at 75-80% of total casualties - confirm this allegation. The IDF unleashed massive firepower on the civilian population in the hope of forcing them to insist Hamas 'restrain' its activities and so avoid more Israeli massacres. This is precisely the strategy the IDF deployed - the Dahiya doctrine as outlined by Eizenkot some 6 years before this latest invasion of Gaza.

Eizenkot's words speak for themselves in all their stark brutality. His words leave no room for interpretation or ambiguity - they are precise and succinct, just as one would expect from a military person. If the term terrorist has any meaning then this is classic textbook terrorism. Therefore, the IDF is a terrorist force.

If you remove the context from statements and fail to consider the whole, then your radical deconstruction can produce any meaning desired. Which I submit is precisely what you have done. I have no doubt Derrida and de Man would be proud of your efforts here, but there is simply no way to adduce the meaning you have without radical, selective deconstruction. You probably achieved A-levels in post-modern literature, but that analysis fails here, mischaracterizing his words and his intent and substituting relativism and subjectivism for what is obviously his intent. So I disagree: your analysis is absolutely theoretical and I have specified the theory you have used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Israel has the ability to take out the bad guys and destroy high priority targets without hurting civilians in the process. They have the technology.

Just curious, but exactly what "technology" would this be? Does it have to be sprinkled with pixie dust before being used? Because it sure as hell sounds like magic to me. There's no such thing as a weapon that's guaranteed to take out just the enemy. It doesn't exist. Anyone who tells you differently is a moron.

Obviously, you haven't read the Harry Potter sequel which is dramatically set in Gaza. It's amazing what those wizards can do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Israel has the ability to take out the bad guys and destroy high priority targets without hurting civilians in the process. They have the technology.

Just curious, but exactly what "technology" would this be? Does it have to be sprinkled with pixie dust before being used? Because it sure as hell sounds like magic to me. There's no such thing as a weapon that's guaranteed to take out just the enemy. It doesn't exist. Anyone who tells you differently is a moron.

Obviously, you haven't read the Harry Potter sequel which is dramatically set in Gaza. It's amazing what those wizards can do.

Would that be Harry Potter and the Chalice of Terrorist Ass-whooping? It's on my reading list but haven't gotten to it yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If that's the best you can do, subrosaDom, that is a pretty pathetic response. It contains a number of factual errors, such as:

quote:

Israeli does not target civilians to cause terror (as does Hamas) -- they do it to root out Hamas's terrorist infrastructure

Israeli General Gadi Eizenkot was quite specific that Israel does target civilians and civilian infrastructure : "From our perspective, these [civilian areas] are military bases. [...] Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah" A deliberate strategy of "harming the population", could it be any clearer? The enormous number of civilians killed and injured in Israel's current rampage in Gaza, with most independent estimates putting it at c75-80% or approx 1350 of the c1800 fatalities confirms the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Since I know you can read I know you know you are intentionally misrepresenting that quote.

He's saying Hezbollah is hiding amongst the civilian population so the IDF has to attack those civilians to get at Hezbollah.

If real lives weren't at stake, DKs post would rank as first class comedy. As it stands, it provides a revealing insight into the kind of intellectual gymnastics and double think necessary to maintain the kind of blind fanatical faith in Israel and its absolute inability to commit a mistake Dom Ken has displayed for as long as I have been posting here.

Even tho' the Israeli general specifically states that "harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah", DK insists this doesn't mean what it says. Even tho' DK states that "the IDF has to attack those civilians", which can only mean that the civilians are being deliberately targetted, DK wants us to believe that doesn't mean that they are deliberately targetting them. One wonders if DK wants us to believe that the IDF are "attacking' those civilians accidentally (!?)...... when he concedes they are being deliberately targetted to "get at Hezbollah". There is no defence in law or morality that I know of that allows the deliberate targetting of civilians. In some circumstances, one can make a case in law and morality for collateral harm against civilians but not deliberate targetting.

Buried the depths of his spin DK thus agrees that civilians are being deliberately targetted. The contradictions are to immense and glaring for any one to resolve. DK's tries to justify the deliberate targetting of civilians as it is the "only way to get at Hezbollah". Even this tenuous defence contains a massive lie - there are other ways of "getting at" Hezbollah or Hamas or whoever Israel's enemy de jour is. For Israel Palestinian lives carry no value so Palestinians are deliberately targetted and killed, sometimes for reasons vaguely related to some kind of military objective, and often times for no reason at all, such as the incident I documented in post #702.

The IDF is quite specific that all this is deliberate and planned, this is not some low level local commander making poor decisions on the ground. The deliberate targetting of civilians and civilian infrastructure - "This isn't a suggestion. It's a plan that has already been authorized." - is an integral part of the IDF's strategy approved at high level. So there is a degree of pre-meditation to these attacks on civilians. They are no accident, they are an integral part of the overall plan.

Even tho' DK is posting the double think and gibberish analysed above he has the stupendous audacity to accuse others of "intentional misrepresent[ations]" - while, as we have seen, he is busy doing exactly that himself. I wonder precisely how tenuous his relationship with reality is. If he really believes what he is asking us to believe, one must conclude that DK's nonsensical misrepresentations suggest that his relationship with reality is very tenuous indeed.

One should also note that DK makes no attempt whatsoever to deny the main charge levelled against the IDF - that it is a terrorist force. Whatever way we look at it, the IDF is deliberately targetting civilian and civilian infrastructure - we have their unambiguous word for it. And that makes the IDF a terrorist force by any reasonable understanding of the term 'terrorist'.

None of that is true. The civilian areas are the same as military bases. To attack the military, they must therefore target civilian areas, because there are no military-only areas. They don't target civilians qua civilians. They target military areas that have civilians in them because of Hamas's immorality. The IDF is therefore in no way a terrorist force. They are attacking Hamas's military bases buried amongst civilians. 100% Hamas's moral responsibility. 0% Israel's. DK is right. You are wrong.

Your interpretation is erroneous.

Please look closely at Gen Eizenkot's words: "Harming the population is the only means of restraining Nasrallah". He is not talking about attacking a military base, or even a military objective. Eizenkot specifies his goal as "restraining Nasrullah", the political head of Hezbollah. He chose the term "restraining" not 'killing' or 'eliminating'. Eizenkot is talking about achieving a political goal not a military one. He wants to "restrain" Nasrullah by inflicting terrible losses on the civilian population - "harming the population" - literally terrorising them into submission so that they beg Nasrullah to stop whatever he is doing that arouses Israeli displeasure.

His goal is political not military. His means of achieving his goal is deliberately target the civilian population and unleash massive firepower inflicting devastating losses in order to achieve the political goal of influencing Nasrullah. He is specific and unambiguous about all of this.

Nor is the some abstract academic discussion, some theoretical analysis. The entire world has just witnesses Eizenkot's words become reality in Gaza. Eizenkot's words are a 100% accurate prediction of the events we have just witnessed in Gaza. The rate of civilian casualties - all independent estimates I have seen put the civilian casualty rate at 75-80% of total casualties - confirm this allegation. The IDF unleashed massive firepower on the civilian population in the hope of forcing them to insist Hamas 'restrain' its activities and so avoid more Israeli massacres. This is precisely the strategy the IDF deployed - the Dahiya doctrine as outlined by Eizenkot some 6 years before this latest invasion of Gaza.

Eizenkot's words speak for themselves in all their stark brutality. His words leave no room for interpretation or ambiguity - they are precise and succinct, just as one would expect from a military person. If the term terrorist has any meaning then this is classic textbook terrorism. Therefore, the IDF is a terrorist force.

If you remove the context from statements and fail to consider the whole, then your radical deconstruction can produce any meaning desired. Which I submit is precisely what you have done. I have no doubt Derrida and de Man would be proud of your efforts here, but there is simply no way to adduce the meaning you have without radical, selective deconstruction. You probably achieved A-levels in post-modern literature, but that analysis fails here, mischaracterizing his words and his intent and substituting relativism and subjectivism for what is obviously his intent. So I disagree: your analysis is absolutely theoretical and I have specified the theory you have used.

Claptrap.

Actually all I did was take the Israeli General's words at face value, using their everyday English meaning. So you really don't know what you are talking about if you believe my analysis was "radical deconstruction". The absolute proof of this is that my interpretation accords with the facts of the recent Israeli rampage in Gaza. So it doesn't rely on anything theoretical at all. It is confirmed by that terrible reality. My argument goes:
The Israelis said they were going to do X Y and Z. Subsequently they did X Y and Z. People who do X Y and Z qualify as terrorists under the normal understanding of the term. Therefore the Israelis are terrorists.

Your failure to find any fault in my argument causes you to rely on vague generalities to maintain your ideologically-driven opposition to my conclusion. Your opposition to my conclusion is entirely theoretical (and bad theory at that - you clearly don't understand the analytical tools you mention)

In typical hasbara style, when all else fails resort to fabrication and BS. I'm disappointed but not surprised. A variable relationship with reality is required to continue believing in the morally bankrupt Zionist cause. Your posts suggest such a relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: dreamysubmale

Under any other circumstances I would have laughed/smiled at your witty response. Your attempt however on humor or sarcasm in this serious matter can’t hide your extreme and fundamentalist views that I witnessed from you in this OP. You don’t make a mockery from slaughter of innocents.

Despite your smears, nobody except for Muslim terrorists enjoys "the slaughter of innocents". Again, Israel acts defensively. Hamas attacks civilian areas with primarily rocket fire, and Israel strikes the source of the barrage and invades to destroy the tunnels said rockets are smuggled through.

That innocents are killed is entirely on Hamas and their backers.