Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/19/2016 4:56:25 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I barely know where to begin here:

a quote by hitler: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:

some of the tenets of the National Socialist German Workers Party Platform:

"We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
"We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
"We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
"We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
"We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores,
"The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education
"The State must ensure that the nation's health standards…

in short: "To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states."

hitler on gun control: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms."

hitler and abortion: When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year.

fascism is a form of totalitarianism where private property doesn't really exist and the power is concentrated in corporations owned and operated by the state.

any of those things sound familiar??

adding this new: no 1930's/40s Germany didn't look like todays sweden, or USSR-lite, but my position is still...Nazism is a leftists wet dream.

Do you have a link to this?

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/19/2016 8:11:23 AM   
MariaB


Posts: 2969
Joined: 4/3/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

What I don't think is debatable, is that this is a consequence of living in a free society.

I also think that the least inch given to censorship will tear apart that freedom.


I'm British and Britain lives on the US coat tails. I wanted to pull you up on your belief that you live in a 'free society' because you don't, you really don't.

I'm told I live in a democracy but when our civil liberties are constantly abused, I would hasten to harp on about 'our' freedoms.

If I join in a protest, even a peaceful one, I can be 'kettled' and suffer a 'grab' arrest for just being present. I can be tried in a secret court and imprisoned without charge.

We, especially here in the UK, are filmed in public spaces. We are filmed when we go shopping, when we go to the park and when we drive our car. Whilst CCTV is used for keeping down crime its constantly used for school truants, dog messing or for people congregating for a cigarette outside a pub. Our kids are no longer allowed to congregate in their local public parks without being threatened with an ASBO/IPNAs/PCSO. If more than two people over the age of ten assemble in any public place, they can be threatened with a PCSO. Failure to comply can result in a fine up to £5,000 or 3 months in prison. My partners daughter got an ASBO when she was 11 years old because her and a friend had chalked a score board onto a pavement for a skipping game. ASBO's have been handed out for spitting, for setting up a stall to give food to the homeless. An 87 year old man was given an ASBO and threatened with a prison sentence for being sarcastic to a neighbour.


With this 'war on terror' our governments can now tap our phones and use the 'snooping charter' to track our every move.
Remember 'PRISM' and 'Project Tempora'? a twenty million a year surveillance programme run by NSA, which allows access to our data on internet giants like FB, Google, Apple and Skype. It can take our images, our emails and even our chat messages. In fact they can access anyone's entire internet history and communication in real time without our permission.

Whilst we like to believe we all have 'freedom of speech', it doesn't mean we have freedom from the consequences of that speech. There are laws on slander and making false accusations. A salesman isn't allowed to lie or exaggerate about a product and you rarely have freedom of speech in the work place.

_____________________________

My store is http://e-stimstore.com

(in reply to ManOeuvre)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/20/2016 12:08:27 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

If bombing the shit out of civilians is not terror bombing then I don't know what the phoque is.



So clearly you don't know phoque. More than adequately proven. At this point you're being redundant.


It is unclear to me whether you are disputing the claim that "If bombing the shit out of civilians is not terror bombing then ... " or disputing the meaning of 'phoque' and/or engaged in some routine character assassination. Or perhaps something else .....

Perhaps you will be kind enough to clarify the point you are attempting to make ....

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 1/20/2016 12:09:30 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/20/2016 12:02:50 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Except they didn't have socialist tendencies.

The 'socialist' simply meant the individual subordinate to the state.

In other words it was an authoritarian regime, which can be right or left; but in this case they very much a right-wing authoritarian regime in practice and principle.


posted this before, seems relevant again:

quote:

I barely know where to begin here:

a quote by hitler: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:

some of the tenets of the National Socialist German Workers Party Platform:

"We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
"We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
"We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
"We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
"We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores,
"The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education
"The State must ensure that the nation's health standards…

in short: "To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states."

hitler on gun control: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms."

hitler and abortion: When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year.

fascism is a form of totalitarianism where private property doesn't really exist and the power is concentrated in corporations owned and operated by the state.

any of those things sound familiar??

adding this new: no 1930's/40s Germany didn't look like todays sweden, or USSR-lite, but my position is still...Nazism is a leftists wet dream. [yes I understand not ALL leftists]


those sure look like "socialist tendencies" to me.

I know you responded to this first time around, so in fairness, maybe you can copy that same response here for everyone to read but im going to suggest the argument of that these policies existed because of "racism" either isn't going to fly, or effectively counteract their inherent "liberal" tenor.


Everything you have posted there speaks only of an authoritarian regime.

And for some reason I can't fathom, you seem to think that only left-wing regimes are authoritarian - which is really strange. I don't have the first clue as to how and why you've arrived at that conclusion.

It's all in the motive.

Take abortion as an example. Your point, by the way. Why? Why was abortion an issue for a regime that paid families to have more children. Actually paid them.

Because they wanted people not considered to be German to be culled, and those considered to be German to multiply.

That is all to do with genetics. Which is a right wing theme by anyone's standards.

Look at the motives behind the Nazi Party and the people involved with them.

Those people were pig farmers and the like with inherently conservative ideas. Martin Heidegger, a died-in-the-wool conservative was their philosophical spokesman. Their entire domestic and foreign policy was underpinned by genetics and the supposed supremacy of the German race. The enemy was consistently seen as Jewish-led Bolshevism.

I have absolutely no idea how you can't grasp this. Either you don't know very much or you've being indoctrinated to think that anything involving Totalitarianism must be left-wing. My guess is the latter, which is ironic.


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/20/2016 12:49:23 PM   
blnymph


Posts: 1600
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Except they didn't have socialist tendencies.

The 'socialist' simply meant the individual subordinate to the state.

In other words it was an authoritarian regime, which can be right or left; but in this case they very much a right-wing authoritarian regime in practice and principle.


posted this before, seems relevant again:

quote:

I barely know where to begin here:

a quote by hitler: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Hitler was named "Man of the Year" in 1938 by Time Magazine. They noted Hitler's anti-capitalistic economic policies:

some of the tenets of the National Socialist German Workers Party Platform:

"We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
"We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
"We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
"We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
"We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores,
"The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education
"The State must ensure that the nation's health standards…

in short: "To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states."

hitler on gun control: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms."

hitler and abortion: When the Nazis came to power in 1933 one of the first acts Hitler did was to legalize abortion. By 1935 Germany with 65 million people was the place where over 500,000 abortions were being performed each year.

fascism is a form of totalitarianism where private property doesn't really exist and the power is concentrated in corporations owned and operated by the state.

any of those things sound familiar??

adding this new: no 1930's/40s Germany didn't look like todays sweden, or USSR-lite, but my position is still...Nazism is a leftists wet dream. [yes I understand not ALL leftists]


those sure look like "socialist tendencies" to me.

I know you responded to this first time around, so in fairness, maybe you can copy that same response here for everyone to read but im going to suggest the argument of that these policies existed because of "racism" either isn't going to fly, or effectively counteract their inherent "liberal" tenor.



oh - where should I start:

the "socialist" part of the NSDAP party program was propaganda intended to attract the working class and the unemployed - NOTHING of it was ever realised from 1933-45 and those (like the Strasser brothers) who demanded those things were shot in '34 ("Röhmputsch")
Those things that existed like health insurance and old age pensions were introduced under Bismarck (1880s). Industry was not nationalised with the exception of those owned by Jews and those critical of the regime. Many industrialists (not only german - like Ford and GM/Opel for instance) made excellent profits and their assets were never touched.

Hitler and abortion: sorry all untrue. Quite the opposite. §§ 219 and 220 StGB raised duration of prison sentences, access to contraceptives was restricted, in 1935 Lebensborn was founded by Himmler.


"a leftist's wet dream" is a grave insult to all the German social democrats and communists who were the very first to be put into Dachau, Oranienburg and the other concentration camps.

your complete ignorance is hardly worth any more comment


eben schlicht ein Arschloch und Volldepp

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/20/2016 12:57:33 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

If bombing the shit out of civilians is not terror bombing then I don't know what the phoque is.



So clearly you don't know phoque. More than adequately proven. At this point you're being redundant.


It is unclear to me whether you are disputing the claim that "If bombing the shit out of civilians is not terror bombing then ... " or disputing the meaning of 'phoque' and/or engaged in some routine character assassination. Or perhaps something else .....

Perhaps you will be kind enough to clarify the point you are attempting to make ....



A terrorist attack is by definition an attack whose intent is to provoke terror. Definition from dictionary.com given earlier.
Terrorist attacks have a number of elements in common, the intent to inspire fear, to subdue.

When isis wipes out an entire tribe -when some members attempted to resist it - thats a terror attack.
When ISIS beheads helpless captives - for a minor infractions like smoking -- thats a terror attack.

When ISIS uses a ununiformed civilian to target civilians via suicide bombing - thats a suicide attack.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conversely, when a plane bombs a mortar position - the intent of the bombing is to take out the mortar. That is not a terror attack.
When Israelis destroy a palestinians home who commits a suicide bombing - that is not a terror attack. The Israelis alway give a 10 minute warning, and then destroy the building. It is a reprisal for an attack against them - but its intent is not to inspire terror - nor to kill.






(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/20/2016 12:58:25 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
lol. Genau. Ganz Genau. GroBe Genau. GroBe Ganz Genau.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to blnymph)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/21/2016 6:42:12 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

If bombing the shit out of civilians is not terror bombing then I don't know what the phoque is.



So clearly you don't know phoque. More than adequately proven. At this point you're being redundant.


It is unclear to me whether you are disputing the claim that "If bombing the shit out of civilians is not terror bombing then ... " or disputing the meaning of 'phoque' and/or engaged in some routine character assassination. Or perhaps something else .....

Perhaps you will be kind enough to clarify the point you are attempting to make ....



A terrorist attack is by definition an attack whose intent is to provoke terror. Definition from dictionary.com given earlier.
Terrorist attacks have a number of elements in common, the intent to inspire fear, to subdue.

When isis wipes out an entire tribe -when some members attempted to resist it - thats a terror attack.
When ISIS beheads helpless captives - for a minor infractions like smoking -- thats a terror attack.

When ISIS uses a ununiformed civilian to target civilians via suicide bombing - thats a suicide attack.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conversely, when a plane bombs a mortar position - the intent of the bombing is to take out the mortar. That is not a terror attack.
When Israelis destroy a palestinians home who commits a suicide bombing - that is not a terror attack. The Israelis alway give a 10 minute warning, and then destroy the building. It is a reprisal for an attack against them - but its intent is not to inspire terror - nor to kill.






I suggest you live in Gaza while one of Israel's regular attacks occurs and then declare whether the intention is to create terror among the civilian population or otherwise.

During the latest Israeli assault on Gaza last year, over 19,000 private homes were destroyed by the Israelis. Perhaps they aimed wrong 19,000 times or alternatively you can believe that they deliberately targeted civilian homes and terrorised civilians.

_____________________________



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/21/2016 6:50:32 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


A terrorist attack is by definition an attack whose intent is to provoke terror. Definition from dictionary.com given earlier.
Terrorist attacks have a number of elements in common, the intent to inspire fear, to subdue.

When isis wipes out an entire tribe -when some members attempted to resist it - thats a terror attack.
When ISIS beheads helpless captives - for a minor infractions like smoking -- thats a terror attack.

When ISIS uses a ununiformed civilian to target civilians via suicide bombing - thats a suicide attack.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conversely, when a plane bombs a mortar position - the intent of the bombing is to take out the mortar. That is not a terror attack.

But that is not what is happening now is it. The targets are general and indiscrimnant.

When Israelis destroy a palestinians home who commits a suicide bombing - that is not a terror attack. The Israelis alway give a 10 minute warning, and then destroy the building. It is a reprisal for an attack against them - but its intent is not to inspire terror - nor to kill.


Threats of carpet bombing are not meant to inspire terror?
What phoquing planet do you live on?


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/22/2016 1:16:34 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


When Israelis destroy a palestinians home who commits a suicide bombing - that is not a terror attack. The Israelis alway give a 10 minute warning, and then destroy the building. It is a reprisal for an attack against them - but its intent is not to inspire terror - nor to kill.






I suggest you live in Gaza while one of Israel's regular attacks occurs and then declare whether the intention is to create terror among the civilian population or otherwise.

During the latest Israeli assault on Gaza last year, over 19,000 private homes were destroyed by the Israelis. Perhaps they aimed wrong 19,000 times or alternatively you can believe that they deliberately targeted civilian homes and terrorised civilians.

I neglected to mention that not a single one of those 19.000 houses destroyed by the Israeli terror attacks belonged to a suicide bomber. This kind of blatantly false defence of Israeli terrorism is routinely advanced by apologists for Zionist terror.

According to wiki, there has only been one suicide bombing in Israel since 2008.* This attack targeted Israeli security forces at a road checkpoint and occurred in the Occupied West Bank, not Gaza. Clearly a military target not a civilian one, and therefore not a terrorist act by Phydeaux's own definition. Yet apologists for Israeli terror continue to trot the suicide bombing excuse out as if they are still occurring on a daily basis. It is impossible to believe that they are unaware of the facts, which makes their claims outright lies.

So the 'suicide bomber' propaganda claims are utterly false and irrelevant. It does not exonerate a single one of the 19,000 house demolitions carried out by the Israeli terrorist infrastructure during its latest large scale assault on Gaza last year. This is a prime example of how the Zionist propaganda machine continues to churn out lie after lie to 'justify' Israel's indefensible terrorism which targets Palestinian civilians on a daily basis.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 1/22/2016 1:23:47 AM >


_____________________________



(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/22/2016 10:57:53 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle



quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


When Israelis destroy a palestinians home who commits a suicide bombing - that is not a terror attack. The Israelis alway give a 10 minute warning, and then destroy the building. It is a reprisal for an attack against them - but its intent is not to inspire terror - nor to kill.






I suggest you live in Gaza while one of Israel's regular attacks occurs and then declare whether the intention is to create terror among the civilian population or otherwise.

During the latest Israeli assault on Gaza last year, over 19,000 private homes were destroyed by the Israelis. Perhaps they aimed wrong 19,000 times or alternatively you can believe that they deliberately targeted civilian homes and terrorised civilians.

I neglected to mention that not a single one of those 19.000 houses destroyed by the Israeli terror attacks belonged to a suicide bomber. This kind of blatantly false defence of Israeli terrorism is routinely advanced by apologists for Zionist terror.

According to wiki, there has only been one suicide bombing in Israel since 2008.* This attack targeted Israeli security forces at a road checkpoint and occurred in the Occupied West Bank, not Gaza. Clearly a military target not a civilian one, and therefore not a terrorist act by Phydeaux's own definition. Yet apologists for Israeli terror continue to trot the suicide bombing excuse out as if they are still occurring on a daily basis. It is impossible to believe that they are unaware of the facts, which makes their claims outright lies.

So the 'suicide bomber' propaganda claims are utterly false and irrelevant. It does not exonerate a single one of the 19,000 house demolitions carried out by the Israeli terrorist infrastructure during its latest large scale assault on Gaza last year. This is a prime example of how the Zionist propaganda machine continues to churn out lie after lie to 'justify' Israel's indefensible terrorism which targets Palestinian civilians on a daily basis.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks



Some suicide bombings are terror attacks.

Not all terror attacks are suicide bombings.

Driving a car along the sidewalk and killing 3 civilians and wounding 19 all the while shouting Allahuackbar G-d is great! We kill thee with glee - is a terror attack. The fact that it doesn't show up on a list of suicide bombings is not surprising, since, yanno, there was no bomb....

On to the 19,000 homes destroyed...
First 19000 is a wetdream. Since you were quoting wiki, lets continue to use wiki, which states 7-10K homes were destroyed.

And it reports that Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired 4564 rockets at Israel.

It is a crime against humanity to site rockets, mortars etc amidst civilian populations. Hamas and Islamic Jihad did so, precisely to cynically use the deaths of civilians for propaganda.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad don't care a bit about civilian casualties. In attacking Israel, they knew they would lose; they knew thousand of people would die and they chose to do so anyway.

Your same wiki notes "In many cases the IDF warned civilians prior to targeting militants in highly populated areas in order to comply with international law.[348][504][505][506] Human rights organizations including Amnesty International,[507][508] confirmed that in many cases, Palestinians received warnings prior to evacuation, including flyers, phone calls and roof knocking."

So the charge of Israel indiscriminately carpet bombing is just blatant antisemitism.

You ignore that Hamas has told civilians to return to their homes or stay put following Israeli warnings to leave.

So, frankly the Israeli's by and large lived withing the Geneva code. Hamas, by targeting civilians with its indiscriminate rockets - did not. The fact that Hamas was stupid and ineffectual - well thats sheer stupidity.

Once again, the Israeli's won, and I support and congratulate them.



(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. - 1/23/2016 5:12:11 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle



quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


When Israelis destroy a palestinians home who commits a suicide bombing - that is not a terror attack. The Israelis alway give a 10 minute warning, and then destroy the building. It is a reprisal for an attack against them - but its intent is not to inspire terror - nor to kill.






I suggest you live in Gaza while one of Israel's regular attacks occurs and then declare whether the intention is to create terror among the civilian population or otherwise.

During the latest Israeli assault on Gaza last year, over 19,000 private homes were destroyed by the Israelis. Perhaps they aimed wrong 19,000 times or alternatively you can believe that they deliberately targeted civilian homes and terrorised civilians.

I neglected to mention that not a single one of those 19.000 houses destroyed by the Israeli terror attacks belonged to a suicide bomber. This kind of blatantly false defence of Israeli terrorism is routinely advanced by apologists for Zionist terror.

According to wiki, there has only been one suicide bombing in Israel since 2008.* This attack targeted Israeli security forces at a road checkpoint and occurred in the Occupied West Bank, not Gaza. Clearly a military target not a civilian one, and therefore not a terrorist act by Phydeaux's own definition. Yet apologists for Israeli terror continue to trot the suicide bombing excuse out as if they are still occurring on a daily basis. It is impossible to believe that they are unaware of the facts, which makes their claims outright lies.

So the 'suicide bomber' propaganda claims are utterly false and irrelevant. It does not exonerate a single one of the 19,000 house demolitions carried out by the Israeli terrorist infrastructure during its latest large scale assault on Gaza last year. This is a prime example of how the Zionist propaganda machine continues to churn out lie after lie to 'justify' Israel's indefensible terrorism which targets Palestinian civilians on a daily basis.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_suicide_attacks



Some suicide bombings are terror attacks.

Not all terror attacks are suicide bombings.

Driving a car along the sidewalk and killing 3 civilians and wounding 19 all the while shouting Allahuackbar G-d is great! We kill thee with glee - is a terror attack. The fact that it doesn't show up on a list of suicide bombings is not surprising, since, yanno, there was no bomb....

On to the 19,000 homes destroyed...
First 19000 is a wetdream. Since you were quoting wiki, lets continue to use wiki, which states 7-10K homes were destroyed.

And it reports that Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired 4564 rockets at Israel.

It is a crime against humanity to site rockets, mortars etc amidst civilian populations. Hamas and Islamic Jihad did so, precisely to cynically use the deaths of civilians for propaganda.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad don't care a bit about civilian casualties. In attacking Israel, they knew they would lose; they knew thousand of people would die and they chose to do so anyway.

Your same wiki notes "In many cases the IDF warned civilians prior to targeting militants in highly populated areas in order to comply with international law.[348][504][505][506] Human rights organizations including Amnesty International,[507][508] confirmed that in many cases, Palestinians received warnings prior to evacuation, including flyers, phone calls and roof knocking."

So the charge of Israel indiscriminately carpet bombing is just blatant antisemitism.

I note that you have been unable to produce a single solitary piece of evidence to support your false and wild claim that the 19,000 homes destroyed by Israel in Gaza during its 2014 attacks belonged to suicide bombers. As I showed in my previous post, the reason for your failure is that no such evidence exists - the last suicide bombing occurred in 2008 and that was in the West Bank, not Gaza and targeted Israeli security forces. Your claim is blatantly false.

As for your claim that "On to the 19,000 homes destroyed...First 19000 is a wetdream." Here are the official UN (May 2015) Figures:
According to the most recent damage assessment of the summer 2014 hostilities in the Gaza Strip, some 12,576 housing units were totally destroyed and 6,455 housing units severely damaged. In total, over 19,000 units were rendered uninhabitable. This has resulted in an estimated 100,000 IDPs who are currently accommodated with host families, in rented apartments, prefabricated units, makeshift shelters, or in their heavily damaged homes. Nearly 150,000 additional units sustained various degrees of damage but remained inhabitable. Most of the destruction and damage occurred in Gaza governorate, followed by the North, Khan Yunis, Middle Area and Rafah, with over 80 per cent of the housing units destroyed or damaged belonging to refugees.
http://gaza.ochaopt.org/2015/05/latest-damage-assessments-reveal-over-12500-housing-units-destroyed-over-the-summer-hostilities-in-gaza/

My claims are supported by a variety of independent reputable sources:
"3) Israel, unlike Hamas, doesn't deliberately target civilians

The Guardian: "It was there that the second [Israeli] shell hit the beach, those firing apparently adjusting their fire to target the fleeing survivors. As it exploded, journalists standing by the terrace wall shouted: 'They are only children.'" UN high commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay: "A number of incidents, along with the high number of civilian deaths, belies the [Israeli] claim that all necessary precautions are being taken to protect civilian lives." United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, 2009: "The tactics used by the Israeli armed forces in the Gaza offensive are consistent with previous practices, most recently during the Lebanon war in 2006. A concept known as the Dahiya doctrine emerged then, involving the application of disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations. The Mission concludes from a review of the facts on the ground that it.. appears to have been precisely what was put into practice."

Human Rights Watch
: "Israeli forces may also have knowingly or recklessly attacked people who were clearly civilians, such as young boys, and civilian structures, including a hospital - laws-of-war violations that are indicative of war crimes." Amnesty International: "Deliberately attacking a civilian home is a war crime, and the overwhelming scale of destruction of civilian homes, in some cases with entire families inside them, points to a distressing pattern of repeated violations of the laws of war."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/gaza-israel_b_5624401.html

People can judge for themselves from the results whether the Israelis engaged in carefully target aerial, missile, tank and artillery attacks or not. Just google 'Israel+Gaza+protective+shield+images' and view the images. They show entire suburbs razed to the ground. There were also repeated Israeli attacks deliberately targeting hospitals schools and other sites where civilians sought refuge from the indiscriminate onslaught, a claim confirmed by the UN quote above. Even kids playing football on the beach became targets for the Israeli terror machine. It defies common sense to claim that devastation on this scale was anything other than indiscriminate, and the casualty figures with something like 1,500 civilians, c450 of them children confirm the charge. Again your apology for Isreali terror is without foundation in facts.

It is a crime for humanity to target civilian areas with overwhelming fire power regardless of who does it. Official Israeli military doctrine - the 'Dahiya doctrine' - calls for the total devastation of civilian areas to terrorise civilians into capitulation. Israel is as guilty of war crimes on a monumental scale as Hamas is in its indiscriminate attacks on civilians in Gaza. If Hamas does it - its a crime. Equally if Israel does it - it's a crime.

Both sides in the Israeli/Palestine conflict are up to their necks in the blood of innocent civilians and use of terror as a tactic. The Israelis are the simply the better equipped, better trained, better supplied terrorists.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 112
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Charlie Hebdo racist cartoon. Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.203