Reply With Quote
I don't get it. If Israel was looking to kill just about anyone, why would these soldiers have held their fire for some stupid woman standing in front of them?
I claim that in the context of the American Revolution, the Americans didn't target civilians. Is that so hard to understand? Now if I'm wrong about that, I'd like to know. But I don't think I am.
I don't get it. If Israel was looking to kill just about anyone, why would these soldiers have held their fire for some stupid woman standing in front of them?
Of course the revolutionaries didn't place a price on a native american scalp. And don't try with the argument that native americans weren't associated with the revolution, that just means you are looking at this argument from just your perspective.
lol you keep calling me a sheep when you exhibit the sings more than I do. Repeat yourself? Check. Give short, unintelligible responses? Check. Never, ever change your (their) position? Check.
Was this a common practice during the American Revolution? Did the Revolutionaries do it as an act of war during said revolution?
You're just proving my point there buddy.
as you are mine.
How am I proving your point?
Shasta you need to free youself of this narrow minded approach to the issue. Don't come into the argument with a "Bad Guy" and "good guy" already set in your mind. You have to understand that when you are opressed you retaliate. Whether the other side wants to label that as terrorism is upto them. The rest of the world views what Israel carries out to be terrorism. Israel bombs Gaza. Gaza fires rockets. Israel claims it needs to eliminate terrorists.
Israel claims it needs to eliminate threats. They don't get hung up on the word "terrorism". How am I proving your point?
You reiterate your flawed logic in every post.
What flawed logic is that? The part where I respond to every media claim with, "of course it's from israel!!! Those liars!"? Oh wait, that's not me.
Its so flawed that you don't realize i have responded to your statement with claims of my own in previous posts. Its ok, i will repeat.
Whenever Israel attacks, you view it as an act to defend itself. You don't even consider the fact that they might be the ones at fault here, at least the rest of t he world seems to think so. Does whatever Hamaas carries on deserve the collective punishment of the entire palest. people?
I don't get it. Why can't you respond like this every time? Since I've only commented on this Gaza attack, I'm not sure what you mean by "whenever Israel attacks,". I consider the fact that it's not as clear cut as either side says it is. I do believe they found a tunnel with "militants" because it has happened before. It seems to be a popular way for Hamas to get supplies (guns, bomb materials, etc) into Israel. I don't think the entire Palestinian populace should be punished for what Hamas does. But I don't see a way around it. Hamas hides/lives among the people. What incentive do they have to come out and differentiate themselves from the Palestinian civilians?
I'm glad we agree on something.
The palest. people don't deserve this.
So are around 1000 lives really worth killing 20 hamaas operatives? That is the question. Jimmy Carter, Tony Blair, Queen Noor, and lots of prominent people have come out and said they are appalled.
How exactly would the American revolutionaries target British civilians considering they were a world away? You might as well say the analogy doesn't hold water because the Americans didn't use cell phones and the Palestinians do. If they were closer its easy to understand they would have been targeted considering that our history is one of attack civilian populations in nearly every single war we've fought up until very recent American History. Even in the damn civil war. The reason what you say doesn't hold water is because when given the opportunity Americans did attack civilians.
The analogy doesn't hold water because it's based on an assumption that can never be proven.
You're right the American track history of attack civilians doesn't prove they would have done so in the revolution given the chance. Except it does. But the analogy didn't even hinge on that point to begin with.
Should I just compare them to Americans from another era to make the analogy hold water for you? Is the killing of civillians the most important aspect of what denotes terrorism to you? Which side is losing far more civillians in this war, btw?
shasta please don't tell me whottt took over your acct
Given the press blackout in Gaza, reliable numbers are are very hard to come by. Where do you get yours, sook?
Sources dated yesterday generally agree that Palestinian fatalities in Gaza are now somewhere north of 800 and the injured well over 3,000.
Israel claims 300 Hamas killed so far. Curiously, a large number of articles yesterday citing "Palestinian sources" say about half the dead are civilian. This article claims an 85% rate of civilian casualties but also reports the UN estimate going the other way:
20 Hamas killed strikes me as being improbably low, based on what the sources most sympathetic to Palestinians are reporting.While the UN continues to claim that "only" 25% of the casualties from the attacks on Gaza are civilian, the Mezan Center for Human Rights (known for the care it takes not to overstate the numbers and for its strict verification policies) estimates that the number of civilian casualties is approximately 85%. In particular, the number of children has increased to over 200, and the number of women has surpassed 75. One reason for the lower civilian casualty figures used by the UN has to do with the reluctance to consider men -other than the elderly and sick- as non-combatants.
Was your figure PFA, sook, or do you have a link?
So by this logic, they'd also enslave british civilians when they came across them. In case you hadn't noticed, many settlers didn't look at native americans as humans.
Sure. Compare them to Americans from another era. That would be a different analogy and it might actually be a good one.Should I just compare them to Americans from another era to make the analogy hold water for you? Is the killing of civillians the most important aspect of what denotes terrorism to you? Which side is losing far more civillians in this war, btw?
not it wasn't a fact -_-, FOX news this morning reported around 900. But the U.N seriously has its facts mixed up, all men as considered combatants? Are they serious?
I cited stories supporting a range of 90-300 Hamas killed. The low end comes from an Islamic human rights group.
The high end ( the UN estimate) is even higher than the Israeli figure of 300, so we can safely disregard the UN estimate. Forget all about it.
Where do you get your figure of 20 Hamas killed, sook?
No dodging...no hoarding the knowledge...please provide a link to support your post.
Tories were not dealt with nicely in Pro-revolutionary areas.
OMFG! This thread took an amazingly dumb detour!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
