Glad you asked.
I'm liberal (around 60-70% of my beliefs can be called liberal) so it's not surprising that I often find myself keeping liberal company, here in the United States and with the friends I've made abroad, in particular, several European countries such as Italy, Germany, and the U.K. (yeah, I know, that's not Europe). In the U.S. any conversations that begin on the topic of the Israeli/Palestinian issue nets me, at worst, some sarcasm and contemptuous looks. When I talk to my European friends about it the hostility that came from them was such that I sometimes wondered if I was actually safe.
If one believes that Israel is the aggressor in this situation, no different than South Africa during Apartheid, then one is going to be rather open about that, and believe me the "coffee talk" in Europe runs very much along those lines, like Europe in the end of the 19th century/ beginning of the 20th century regarding the Jews.
Have to cut this short. Gotta run.
You don't have to bob 'n' weave for him, he will certainly perform his own gymnastics to avoid the question.The same proof Leftists have when they say that the Arizona illegal immigration law is racist.
You don't have to bob 'n' weave for him, he will certainly perform his own gymnastics to avoid the question.
The Proof of the Arizona law being racist is... the Arizona law. I know that you will deny that ONLY people who look Mexican will be asked about their legal status so don't bother.
That's a far different definition of proportionality than comparing civilian deaths on each side of the border. The necessity of the operation isn't debatable unless you think it's ok for rockets to be falling on you. That leads to the issue of efficiency. By that definition of efficiency, Hamas was in control of that because they were using human shields. We don't know if it was an efficient mission or not because the #s are disputed, but it may've been extremely efficient. Israel not only had high tech weapons, they bent over backwards to warn civilians about their war plans. They sacrificed the element of surprise by doing so. If if there was inefficiency, very little of it should be blamed on Israel.Good!
According to international courts, that's proportionality
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).
Things that should enter into account are the "efficiency" of a measure, and also its "necessity".
What you're proposing is a war crime.It would be better than replying to Katusha rockets with aerial bombing and demolition of houses, yes.
More likely because, on a regular basis, Israel forgot that an "eye for an eye" doesn't mean "116 eyes for an eye"Much of the world doesn't care for Israel, because Israel always whens the fight?
More likely because, on a regular basis, Israel forgot that an "eye for an eye" doesn't mean "116 eyes for an eye"
Read the Old Testament, you might have a hard time summoning sympathy for the Jews.Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians, so they could build their own country--not that they ever had one to begin with. Then, when the Pals got their own country, they turn around and declare war on Israel. So, yes, Israel is acting in self defense.
Palestine the country didn't exist before the Israelis fought for and won their freedom in 1948.
After what the Arabs have done to the Jews over the past few thousand years, I'm having a hard time summoning any sympathy for the Palestinians. Sorry.
What you're proposing is a war crime.
I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.
Probably, but at least that would be "an eye for an eye", not "an eye, 5 teeth and a broken arm for an eye"
"The objective of any war is to do more damage, in less time, than your enemy" --General George S. Patton Jr.
She's not a politician (nor was Dan Rather) so what do you expect to be done by "liberals"? Seems like there is a fair amount of outrage over it... but of course, you need to blame liberals because she hasn't been lined up against a wall and shot. :roll:She'll get a pass. Liberal excitement over racism, homophobia and anti-semetism is only for political ammo. They don't really care. It'll be like when Dan Rather made the, "selling watermelon's", comment a while back.
IMHO, revenge is barbaric. The expression "an eye for an eye" makes my skin crawl. Maybe that's why it's a war crime.Probably, but at least that would be "an eye for an eye", not "an eye, 5 teeth and a broken arm for an eye"
You must be against the U.S. killing many more civilians in Iraq,Afghanistan and Pakistan in probably a month than the out of control Israelies.
Read the Old Testament, you might have a hard time summoning sympathy for the Jews.
Who was living in the area before the Jews decided they had the authority to divy it up?
She's not a politician (nor was Dan Rather) so what do you expect to be done by "liberals"? Seems like there is a fair amount of outrage over it... but of course, you need to blame liberals because she hasn't been lined up against a wall and shot. :roll:
Perhaps the Pals should get the message and stop attacking Israel.
"The objective of any war is to do more damage, in less time, than your enemy" --General George S. Patton Jr.
That's a far different definition of proportionality than comparing civilian deaths on each side of the border. The necessity of the operation isn't debatable unless you think it's ok for rockets to be falling on you. That leads to the issue of efficiency. By that definition of efficiency, Hamas was in control of that because they were using human shields. We don't know if it was an efficient mission or not because the #s are disputed, but it may've been extremely efficient. Israel not only had high tech weapons, they bent over backwards to warn civilians about their war plans. They sacrificed the element of surprise by doing so. If if there was inefficiency, very little of it should be blamed on Israel.
IMHO, revenge is barbaric. The expression "an eye for an eye" makes my skin crawl. Maybe that's why it's a war crime.
It's not "the Pals" attacking Israel. It's militant groups within their population. You just betrayed an extreme ignorance of the situation and exposed how your position is one of emotional knee-jerking.
It's not "the Pals" attacking Israel. It's militant groups within their population. You just betrayed an extreme ignorance of the situation and exposed how your position is one of emotional knee-jerking.
"The objective of any war is to do more damage, in less time, than your enemy" --General George S. Patton Jr.
The only difference with the WWII is that the goal of Israel/Palestinians is not to destroy each others, it is to reach an acceptable peace and live as good neighbors.
Shouldn't we return to the topic of this thread and tell that ugly piece of anti-Semitic **** to go and set herself on fire?
Just sayin'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?