If that border remains closed, and all supplies are monitored, then how was hamas able to get so many rockets in the fist place?bogo24dk wrote:
Closed like it has been for the most of the time.
The tunnels to Egypt. Remember that they didn't fire 100's of missiles. Most of the time was it between 3 and 12.S.Lythberg wrote:
If that border remains closed, and all supplies are monitored, then how was hamas able to get so many rockets in the fist place?bogo24dk wrote:
Closed like it has been for the most of the time.
then the borders not exactly sealedbogo24dk wrote:
The tunnels to Egypt. Remember that they didn't fire 100's of missiles. Most of the time was it between 3 and 12.S.Lythberg wrote:
If that border remains closed, and all supplies are monitored, then how was hamas able to get so many rockets in the fist place?bogo24dk wrote:
Closed like it has been for the most of the time.
if the border's sealed, then a easing of the embargo would work to weaken hamas's support (god knows they can't govern).
Maybe we should consider why Egypt and Syria are so bent on fueling the conflict...
International troops would be deployed along the border.
But the idea of Egypt helping the Palestinians or even hamas is laughable. Mubarak does what US is saying because he is depend on the aid he gets . With out the aid he will face a revolution. And helping hamas is like helping his own grave. The party's which oppose him in Egypt and which is very strong is the Muslim brotherhood. Hamas shares that ideology. And for Syria to help i doubt that they have the capability. The only one which may help is Iran.
But you think that the arabs leaders want this conflict to go on ? This conflict is a evidence how every arab leader is to greedy and only cares about his own title. If the arabs where united Israel wouldn't be on the map today.
The only one who is gaining from this conflict is Israel. Every year they steal more land from west bank by kicking out Palestinians.
This map clearly shows who is gaining from this conflict :
But the idea of Egypt helping the Palestinians or even hamas is laughable. Mubarak does what US is saying because he is depend on the aid he gets . With out the aid he will face a revolution. And helping hamas is like helping his own grave. The party's which oppose him in Egypt and which is very strong is the Muslim brotherhood. Hamas shares that ideology. And for Syria to help i doubt that they have the capability. The only one which may help is Iran.
But you think that the arabs leaders want this conflict to go on ? This conflict is a evidence how every arab leader is to greedy and only cares about his own title. If the arabs where united Israel wouldn't be on the map today.
The only one who is gaining from this conflict is Israel. Every year they steal more land from west bank by kicking out Palestinians.
This map clearly shows who is gaining from this conflict :
Arabs got their ass kicked in the 6 day war.bogo24dk wrote:
International troops would be deployed along the border.
But the idea of Egypt helping the Palestinians or even hamas is laughable. Mubarak does what US is saying because he is depend on the aid he gets . With out the aid he will face a revolution. And helping hamas is like helping his own grave. The party's which oppose him in Egypt and which is very strong is the Muslim brotherhood. Hamas shares that ideology. And for Syria to help i doubt that they have the capability. The only one which may help is Iran.
But you think that the arabs leaders want this conflict to go on ? This conflict is a evidence how every arab leader is to greedy and only cares about his own title. If the arabs where united Israel wouldn't be on the map today.
The only one who is gaining from this conflict is Israel. Every year they steal more land from west bank by kicking out Palestinians.
This map clearly shows who is gaining from this conflict :
http://www.ccmep.org/delegations/maps/landmap1.jpg
The world recognises Hamas as a militant/terrorist group. Therefore war crimes are a given, however, even though there was the intent to cause war crimes, they didn't actually pull it off. The IDF, however, have probably committed some war crimes with success. Otherwise they wouldn't have even made this statement about defending soldiers in the first place.
I find it funny how some people's only line of defence for Israel is that "why don't people do the same to the Palestinians" - I thought one of the main reasons you guys think you have the moral upper hand is because you're not like them? But all of a sudden you want to be treated like them also. I mean shit, here you are, constantly calling them (Hamas) terrorists, which I don't think anyone can argue about, but then you go and say that you want to be treated like them. Funny.
What I've noticed on this forum, is that the pro israeli people are much more extreme than the pro palestinian people here. They can't see both sides of the story as much as the other. They also seem to be incapable of thinking that Israel has any faults whatsoever. Which is a fucking joke.
I find it funny how some people's only line of defence for Israel is that "why don't people do the same to the Palestinians" - I thought one of the main reasons you guys think you have the moral upper hand is because you're not like them? But all of a sudden you want to be treated like them also. I mean shit, here you are, constantly calling them (Hamas) terrorists, which I don't think anyone can argue about, but then you go and say that you want to be treated like them. Funny.
What I've noticed on this forum, is that the pro israeli people are much more extreme than the pro palestinian people here. They can't see both sides of the story as much as the other. They also seem to be incapable of thinking that Israel has any faults whatsoever. Which is a fucking joke.
That position is not unique to Israel. Many countries handle the investigation/prosecution internally for crimes violating their own codes of conduct and domestic laws. It remains to be seen if Israel will prosecute any soldiers internally for any events in Gaza--which were a very, very small percentage of overall operations there.
That position does not, however, protect the civilian decision-makers from investigation/prosecution for war crimes (which means the OP title is a misnomer).
That position does not, however, protect the civilian decision-makers from investigation/prosecution for war crimes (which means the OP title is a misnomer).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I find it interesting, the Israelis have been pursuing Germans for war crimes around the world for the last sixty years, and suddenly the rules don't apply any more.
So now you have a crystal ball and can see into Gaza?FEOS wrote:
It remains to be seen if Israel will prosecute any soldiers internally for any events in Gaza--which were a very, very small percentage of overall operations there.
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programm … 843307.stmNew evidence of Gaza child deaths
Four-year-old Samar Abed Rabbu is a little girl with a captivating smile to melt the heart of the most hardened correspondent.
When we first came across her in the hospital in the Egyptian town of El-Arish, just over the border from Gaza, she was playing with an inflated surgical glove beneath the covers.
The doctors had puffed air into the glove, trying to distract her from the further pain they had to inflict inserting a drip.
Samar had been shot in the back at close range. The bullet damaged her spine, and she is unlikely to walk again.
At her bedside, her uncle Hassan told us the family had been ordered out of their home by Israeli soldiers who were shelling the neighbourhood.
A tank had parked in front of the house, where around 30 people were taking shelter.
The women and children - mother, grandmother and three little girls - came out waving a white flag and then, he said, an Israeli soldier came out of the tank and opened fire on the terrified procession.
Samar's two sisters, aged seven and two, were shot dead. The grandmother was hit in the arm and in the side, but has survived.
One of the most alarming features of the conflict in Gaza is the number of child casualties. More than 400 were killed. Many had shrapnel or blast injuries sustained as the Israeli army battled Hamas militants in Gaza's densely populated civilian areas.
But the head of neurosurgery at the El-Arish hospital, Dr Ahmed Yahia, told me that brain scans made it clear that a number of the child victims had been shot at close range.
Samar's uncle said the soldier who had shot his niece was just 15m (49ft) away. ''How could they not see they were shooting at children?'' he asked.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-01-26 03:26:26)
Fuck Israel
No, the rules for German war crimes still apply.Dilbert_X wrote:
I find it interesting, the Israelis have been pursuing Germans for war crimes around the world for the last sixty years, and suddenly the rules don't apply any more.
If by "crystal ball" you mean "access to the news reports coming out of Gaza", then yes. Oh, and some elementary math skills. Those help, too.Dilbert_X wrote:
So now you have a crystal ball and can see into Gaza?FEOS wrote:
It remains to be seen if Israel will prosecute any soldiers internally for any events in Gaza--which were a very, very small percentage of overall operations there.
Numbers of civilian casualties has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. So your article, while moving, is completely irrelevant to the point I made.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Strange, the Israelis are saying they won't let any of their soldiers be prosecuted, quite a few German soldiers were prosecuted I'm pretty sure
Where do you get information like this, unless you're making it up?FEOS wrote:
were a very, very small percentage of overall operations there
Fuck Israel
Yes a war which Israel started :Cybargs wrote:
Arabs got their ass kicked in the 6 day war.bogo24dk wrote:
International troops would be deployed along the border.
But the idea of Egypt helping the Palestinians or even hamas is laughable. Mubarak does what US is saying because he is depend on the aid he gets . With out the aid he will face a revolution. And helping hamas is like helping his own grave. The party's which oppose him in Egypt and which is very strong is the Muslim brotherhood. Hamas shares that ideology. And for Syria to help i doubt that they have the capability. The only one which may help is Iran.
But you think that the arabs leaders want this conflict to go on ? This conflict is a evidence how every arab leader is to greedy and only cares about his own title. If the arabs where united Israel wouldn't be on the map today.
The only one who is gaining from this conflict is Israel. Every year they steal more land from west bank by kicking out Palestinians.
This map clearly shows who is gaining from this conflict :
http://www.ccmep.org/delegations/maps/landmap1.jpg
"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68
The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman stated that there was "no threat of destruction" but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could "exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies." Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." New York Times, August 21, 1982 and Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
Moshe Dayan (the Defense Minister in 1967) who gave the order to conquer the Golan Heights, said many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and that the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland... Dayan stated "They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land... We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was... The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us." The New York Times, May 11, 1997
So the 1967 war was a war of Israeli aggression, interesting.
Thats how Israel has always worked, provoke a reaction, use the reaction as an excuse for further action.
Thats how Israel has always worked, provoke a reaction, use the reaction as an excuse for further action.
Fuck Israel
let the propaganda drums roll
Hmm the old coward argument. Often used by sides who if they had the same technology, would be raping its use to death. The actual terms that should be associated are smart. I can guarantee if you got stuck in a warzone you'd rather be fighting in safety rather than going house to house and toe to toe.bogo24dk wrote:
Do they now. Then why is Israel still insisting on releasing Gillad Shalit the captured Israeli soldier. I am no fan of hamas but IDF is gulty of the same points which you make. Torture is well known of Palestinian prisoners. Even Americans are using torture in gitmo.S.Lythberg wrote:
Hamas are amateurs, that is why they resort to human shields and blind fire rockets.bogo24dk wrote:
You don't understand. I was referring to the IDF actions which they regularly target a hamas member from an apache helicopter. And my question is this : How many IDF officers who are guilty have faced the same punishment.
And according to the rockets.
When you fire those so called rockets they have no idea where it will land. If it's a house or a field. Over 95% procent of those rockets have hit a field mark not a civilian house.
But the actions of IDF where they systematically destroyed houses killed civilians makes hamas look like a amateur.
Hamas members are known to torture and kill their prisoners, I'd rather kill them from 3,000 feet away than risk capture. When they follow the rules of engagement, I'll expect Israel to do the same.
And your point of killing hamas from 3000 feet is one of the coward one. Cause hitting with a car or anything in highly dense populated area. Is guranted in killing civilians.
Sure if i am in a war where i am attacked like ww 2. But if it's a war where it's waged on civilian populations just to shut them up so i can steal more land. Then that's cowardly no matter how you look at it.M.O.A.B wrote:
Hmm the old coward argument. Often used by sides who if they had the same technology, would be raping its use to death. The actual terms that should be associated are smart. I can guarantee if you got stuck in a warzone you'd rather be fighting in safety rather than going house to house and toe to toe.bogo24dk wrote:
Do they now. Then why is Israel still insisting on releasing Gillad Shalit the captured Israeli soldier. I am no fan of hamas but IDF is gulty of the same points which you make. Torture is well known of Palestinian prisoners. Even Americans are using torture in gitmo.S.Lythberg wrote:
Hamas are amateurs, that is why they resort to human shields and blind fire rockets.
Hamas members are known to torture and kill their prisoners, I'd rather kill them from 3,000 feet away than risk capture. When they follow the rules of engagement, I'll expect Israel to do the same.
And your point of killing hamas from 3000 feet is one of the coward one. Cause hitting with a car or anything in highly dense populated area. Is guranted in killing civilians.
Last edited by bogo24dk (2009-01-26 07:31:18)
It's funny how everyone is getting all worked up about Gaza and no one seems to care about the undebatable genocide in Darfur.
bogo24dk wrote:
Sure if i am in a war where i am attacked like ww 2. But if it's a war where it's waged on civilian populations just to shut them up so i can steal more land. Then that's cowardly no matter how you look at it.M.O.A.B wrote:
Hmm the old coward argument. Often used by sides who if they had the same technology, would be raping its use to death. The actual terms that should be associated are smart. I can guarantee if you got stuck in a warzone you'd rather be fighting in safety rather than going house to house and toe to toe.bogo24dk wrote:
Do they now. Then why is Israel still insisting on releasing Gillad Shalit the captured Israeli soldier. I am no fan of hamas but IDF is gulty of the same points which you make. Torture is well known of Palestinian prisoners. Even Americans are using torture in gitmo.
And your point of killing hamas from 3000 feet is one of the coward one. Cause hitting with a car or anything in highly dense populated area. Is guranted in killing civilians.
This was the bit you stated as cowardly, launching weaponry from 3000 feet to kill a Hamas member, there was no input regarding theft of land. Urban warfare is quite possibly the most dangerous and difficult to conduct from practically every aspect, particularly when your enemy blends in with the civilian population. You could kill a group of Hamas members who could then be played off as civilians because of their clothing. Civilians will always die in war, that is a part of it. Nobody wants it to happen, except groups like Hamas who purposely embed themselves amongst civilians as a form of protection. Hiding your stockpile of weapons inside of and using a hospital or school or house to fire at IDF troops and vehicles while innocent people are hiding somewhere behind you who are guaranteed to be killed when the IDF responds to the shooter, is cowardly, and sums up Hamas pretty well.bogo24dk wrote:
And your point of killing hamas from 3000 feet is one of the coward one
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2009-01-26 07:40:15)
Israel can cry all they want about being the target of terrorism but if they do not submit to the same rules as the rest of the civilized world then they must face the fact that they too will be viewed as terrorists.
I used to think people who compared the Israeli army to the nazis and the Gaza strip to the Warsaw ghettoes were just fond of exaggerated comparisons but now I'm beginning to see the parallels. Palestinians must just think the rest of the world has forgotten about them the same way the Jews probably did during the holocaust.
I used to think people who compared the Israeli army to the nazis and the Gaza strip to the Warsaw ghettoes were just fond of exaggerated comparisons but now I'm beginning to see the parallels. Palestinians must just think the rest of the world has forgotten about them the same way the Jews probably did during the holocaust.
As a soldier you have a duty to do everything not to kill civilians. So if killing or capture a hamas member means that inserting a group of elite soldiers would spare civilian life's. Then that's what you do. Unless of course you have no respect for the other side and you value your soldiers more. Which it would make not only a coward but also a fascist. Resulting to state terror like the latest action in Gaza and saying that the people who died are just a unfortunate act of war. It's a cowards way to justify terror.M.O.A.B wrote:
bogo24dk wrote:
Sure if i am in a war where i am attacked like ww 2. But if it's a war where it's waged on civilian populations just to shut them up so i can steal more land. Then that's cowardly no matter how you look at it.M.O.A.B wrote:
Hmm the old coward argument. Often used by sides who if they had the same technology, would be raping its use to death. The actual terms that should be associated are smart. I can guarantee if you got stuck in a warzone you'd rather be fighting in safety rather than going house to house and toe to toe.This was the bit you stated as cowardly, launching weaponry from 3000 feet to kill a Hamas member, there was no input regarding theft of land. Urban warfare is quite possibly the most dangerous and difficult to conduct from practically every aspect, particularly when your enemy blends in with the civilian population. You could kill a group of Hamas members who could then be played off as civilians because of their clothing. Civilians will always die in war, that is a part of it. Nobody wants it to happen, except groups like Hamas who purposely embed themselves amongst civilians as a form of protection. Hiding your stockpile of weapons inside of and using a hospital or school or house to fire at IDF troops and vehicles while innocent people are hiding somewhere behind you who are guaranteed to be killed when the IDF responds to the shooter, is cowardly, and sums up Hamas pretty well.bogo24dk wrote:
And your point of killing hamas from 3000 feet is one of the coward one
Need i remind you that Gaza is under occupation and under Geneva law the occupier must ensure the safety of the civilians. Which in this case it's not.
Every country and every army will put safety of its own before others. Also I would not have respect for a group who hides behind women and children, uses women and children as suicide bombers and uses hospitals, schools and apartments as firebases.bogo24dk wrote:
As a soldier you have a duty to do everything not to kill civilians. So if killing or capture a hamas member means that inserting a group of elite soldiers would spare civilian life's. Then that's what you do. Unless of course you have no respect for the other side and you value your soldiers more. Which it would make not only a coward but also a fascist. Resulting to state terror like the latest action in Gaza and saying that the people who died are just a unfortunate act of war. It's a cowards way to justify terror.M.O.A.B wrote:
bogo24dk wrote:
Sure if i am in a war where i am attacked like ww 2. But if it's a war where it's waged on civilian populations just to shut them up so i can steal more land. Then that's cowardly no matter how you look at it.This was the bit you stated as cowardly, launching weaponry from 3000 feet to kill a Hamas member, there was no input regarding theft of land. Urban warfare is quite possibly the most dangerous and difficult to conduct from practically every aspect, particularly when your enemy blends in with the civilian population. You could kill a group of Hamas members who could then be played off as civilians because of their clothing. Civilians will always die in war, that is a part of it. Nobody wants it to happen, except groups like Hamas who purposely embed themselves amongst civilians as a form of protection. Hiding your stockpile of weapons inside of and using a hospital or school or house to fire at IDF troops and vehicles while innocent people are hiding somewhere behind you who are guaranteed to be killed when the IDF responds to the shooter, is cowardly, and sums up Hamas pretty well.bogo24dk wrote:
And your point of killing hamas from 3000 feet is one of the coward one
Need i remind you that Gaza is under occupation and under Geneva law the occupier must ensure the safety of the civilians. Which in this case it's not.
The recent combat in Gaza was a justifed response to Hamas firing rockets into Israel with the intent of harming civilians and soliders. There was no distinction between, it was indiscriminate fire. Israel both used messages to warn Palesitnians and also used precision guided munitions and surveillance, active methods to reduce casualties. If the Palestinians refused to heed warnings, then blame can not be imposed solely on Israel. The GC also I believe states that any civilian casualties that result from attacks on places used by a combative group are the fault of the group that used the site for military purposes. There's a reason why actual armies have bases and depots rather than using civilian buildings.
Gaza is also not occupied, the Israeli's pulled out their settlements and military forces in 2005, therefore responsibility of safety of the civilians lies more with Hamas.
Hmmm,
You mean these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhVDwrfoTOg
And these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSwpAX1xvrc
Or maybe these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dPb1bF-s4M
You mean these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhVDwrfoTOg
And these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSwpAX1xvrc
Or maybe these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dPb1bF-s4M
Let me see if I have this right... are you saying the 400 Palestinian kids who were killed deserved to die on the basis of a selection of YouTube video clips?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Hmmm,
You mean these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhVDwrfoTOg
And these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSwpAX1xvrc
Or maybe these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dPb1bF-s4M
Last edited by Braddock (2009-01-26 13:58:33)
Are you talking about IDF ?M.O.A.B wrote:
Every country and every army will put safety of its own before others. Also I would not have respect for a group who hides behind women and children, uses women and children as suicide bombers and uses hospitals, schools and apartments as firebases.bogo24dk wrote:
As a soldier you have a duty to do everything not to kill civilians. So if killing or capture a hamas member means that inserting a group of elite soldiers would spare civilian life's. Then that's what you do. Unless of course you have no respect for the other side and you value your soldiers more. Which it would make not only a coward but also a fascist. Resulting to state terror like the latest action in Gaza and saying that the people who died are just a unfortunate act of war. It's a cowards way to justify terror.M.O.A.B wrote:
This was the bit you stated as cowardly, launching weaponry from 3000 feet to kill a Hamas member, there was no input regarding theft of land. Urban warfare is quite possibly the most dangerous and difficult to conduct from practically every aspect, particularly when your enemy blends in with the civilian population. You could kill a group of Hamas members who could then be played off as civilians because of their clothing. Civilians will always die in war, that is a part of it. Nobody wants it to happen, except groups like Hamas who purposely embed themselves amongst civilians as a form of protection. Hiding your stockpile of weapons inside of and using a hospital or school or house to fire at IDF troops and vehicles while innocent people are hiding somewhere behind you who are guaranteed to be killed when the IDF responds to the shooter, is cowardly, and sums up Hamas pretty well.bogo24dk wrote:
Sure if i am in a war where i am attacked like ww 2. But if it's a war where it's waged on civilian populations just to shut them up so i can steal more land. Then that's cowardly no matter how you look at it.
Need i remind you that Gaza is under occupation and under Geneva law the occupier must ensure the safety of the civilians. Which in this case it's not.
The recent combat in Gaza was a justifed response to Hamas firing rockets into Israel with the intent of harming civilians and soliders. There was no distinction between, it was indiscriminate fire. Israel both used messages to warn Palesitnians and also used precision guided munitions and surveillance, active methods to reduce casualties. If the Palestinians refused to heed warnings, then blame can not be imposed solely on Israel. The GC also I believe states that any civilian casualties that result from attacks on places used by a combative group are the fault of the group that used the site for military purposes. There's a reason why actual armies have bases and depots rather than using civilian buildings.
Gaza is also not occupied, the Israeli's pulled out their settlements and military forces in 2005, therefore responsibility of safety of the civilians lies more with Hamas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm
Cause in gaza if you hold a child or a woman the Idf would not stop hesitate killing you. Or did you forget you glorious speech how it is right to kill civilians.
Hamas Rockets started to rain down after a embargo which made 1.5 mill people lifes a hell. And need i remind you that Gaza isn't free or west bank. When you look up 1.5 mill people and you threat them like subhumans. You don't have the right to complain about small rockets falling down on a field. When daily children where dieing in hospitals cause of the embargo.
But either you chosse to ignore things which would make you a bigot :
big·ot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
No, you absolutely do not have to be tolerant of other people's cultures and religions. You have every right to be a bigot.
In fact, I would defend your right to be a bigot and very gladly let everyone else know that you are one.
Or you don't have a clue about the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
But everyone in Palestine is like that Braddock!Braddock wrote:
Let me see if I have this right... are you saying the 400 Palestinian kids who were killed deserved to be die on the basis of a selection of YouTube video clips?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Hmmm,
You mean these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhVDwrfoTOg
And these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSwpAX1xvrc
Or maybe these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dPb1bF-s4M
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6UMP3AK5jwo
My God... there's loads of clips of those Westboro types on there, all Americans must be like that!ghettoperson wrote:
But everyone in Palestine is like that Braddock!Braddock wrote:
Let me see if I have this right... are you saying the 400 Palestinian kids who were killed deserved to be die on the basis of a selection of YouTube video clips?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Hmmm,
You mean these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhVDwrfoTOg
And these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSwpAX1xvrc
Or maybe these kids?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dPb1bF-s4M
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6UMP3AK5jwo
On a more serious note... I do actually believe that the propaganda both Palestinian and Israeli kids are subjected to from their parents, their news outlets and their society in general has made ingrained hatred a serious problem in the region but I don't for one minute think it justifies attacks from either side that result in the death of children.