New rules of engagement for stone throwers from the IDF. Expect quite a few deaths

[Coyote]

There is no Palestinian Occupation.

But of course, it's a palistanian occupation. The palistanian occupation, indeed.

Even the Israeli High Court considers it to be "occupied territory" and the occupying force is Israel.

Funny. It's 2015 outside, what year is that high court stuck in and how high?

Have they changed their ruling?

It's illegal to give alcohol to a moose in Alaska. Noone changed that either. But time moves on and times change, of course./size]

If not, then you have no point to make.

But off course, i have and do.

I think there is a considerable difference between a military occupation and an intoxicated moose.

The absence of the "military occupation" leaves us with an intoxicated palistanian moose, of course.

There are laws making murder murder illegal....time moves on...and times change. But murder is still murder.

That's a part of the palistanian occupation, of course. "With the blood of jews we redeem blah-blah-blah ... !!", or somesuch bullish.

There is no Palestinian occupation. But if it makes you feel better to endlessly repeat that delusional drivel, feel free.

 

[Phoenall]

Different laws apply because of the customary International law embodied in the Geneva convention. The Palestinians are subject to Jordanian law under the Geneva conventions while the Israelis are subject to Israeli law under the Geneva conventions. Until the law makers sit and study the terms in G.C 4 that is how it will stay.
If Israeli law had it that stone throwers were executed would you want it to apply to Palestinians, or would you want Jordanian Law to apply.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

...moral equivelence sems to be you and your ilk's favorite buzz word to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Kind of gives you a free pass in ethics

Do you mean like the murder in cold blood of the parents just the other day, or the murder of 3 Israeli boys last year. Both incidents carried out to incite reprisals by Israel against hamas.

...the murder of 3 Israeli boys followed by the kidnapping and burning alive of an Arab Israeli teenager....

or the burning alive of a Palestinian family in their home....

and you claim "moral equivalence"? There is no difference and there is no justification for any of this, or the murder of the Fogels, or the shooting of the family we are now discussing.

And of course in your eyes it is all the Jews fault as they should not be there trying to live as normal a life as is possible.

I haven't assigned fault in these actions other than by the people who did them. Try to stick with reality and what people actually have said instead of turning everything into "joooooos".

Not me that blames the Jews for everything is it, or puts them on a pedastal

 

[Phoenall]

But of course, it's a palistanian occupation. The palistanian occupation, indeed.Funny. It's 2015 outside, what year is that high court stuck in and how high?

Have they changed their ruling?

It's illegal to give alcohol to a moose in Alaska. Noone changed that either. But time moves on and times change, of course./size]

If not, then you have no point to make.

But off course, i have and do.

I think there is a considerable difference between a military occupation and an intoxicated moose.

The absence of the "military occupation" leaves us with an intoxicated palistanian moose, of course.

There are laws making murder murder illegal....time moves on...and times change. But murder is still murder.

That's a part of the palistanian occupation, of course. "With the blood of jews we redeem blah-blah-blah ... !!", or somesuch bullish.

There is no Palestinian occupation. But if it makes you feel better to endlessly repeat that delusional drivel, feel free.

Look up the treaty made in 1923 by the LoN and you will see that the land was given to the Jews and not the arab muslims. They were given trans Jordan for their homeland. So any "Palestinians " on Jewish land are in fact occupiers of jewish land

 

[docmauser1]

But of course, it's a palistanian occupation. The palistanian occupation, indeed.Funny. It's 2015 outside, what year is that high court stuck in and how high?

Have they changed their ruling?

It's illegal to give alcohol to a moose in Alaska. Noone changed that either. But time moves on and times change, of course./size]

If not, then you have no point to make.

But off course, i have and do.

I think there is a considerable difference between a military occupation and an intoxicated moose.

The absence of the "military occupation" leaves us with an intoxicated palistanian moose, of course.

There are laws making murder murder illegal....time moves on...and times change. But murder is still murder.

That's a part of the palistanian occupation, of course. "With the blood of jews we redeem blah-blah-blah ... !!", or somesuch bullish.

There is no Palestinian occupation.

But of course, there is. It's what they do.

But if it makes you feel better to endlessly repeat that delusional drivel, feel free.

We love our honorable coyote too, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

Different laws apply because of the customary International law embodied in the Geneva convention. The Palestinians are subject to Jordanian law under the Geneva conventions while the Israelis are subject to Israeli law under the Geneva conventions. Until the law makers sit and study the terms in G.C 4 that is how it will stay.
If Israeli law had it that stone throwers were executed would you want it to apply to Palestinians, or would you want Jordanian Law to apply.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

...moral equivelence sems to be you and your ilk's favorite buzz word to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Kind of gives you a free pass in ethics

my ilk, is it a jooo thing?

Nope. But go ahead and try to make it into a "joooo" thing - it's what you do best

Bullish.

 

[docmauser1]

Different laws apply because of the customary International law embodied in the Geneva convention. The Palestinians are subject to Jordanian law under the Geneva conventions while the Israelis are subject to Israeli law under the Geneva conventions. Until the law makers sit and study the terms in G.C 4 that is how it will stay.
If Israeli law had it that stone throwers were executed would you want it to apply to Palestinians, or would you want Jordanian Law to apply.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

...moral equivelence sems to be you and your ilk's favorite buzz word to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Kind of gives you a free pass in ethics

Do you mean like the murder in cold blood of the parents just the other day, or the murder of 3 Israeli boys last year. Both incidents carried out to incite reprisals by Israel against hamas.

...the murder of 3 Israeli boys followed by the kidnapping and burning alive of an Arab Israeli teenager....

or the burning alive of a Palestinian family in their home....

and you claim "moral equivalence"? There is no difference and there is no justification for any of this, or the murder of the Fogels, or the shooting of the family we are now discussing.

And of course in your eyes it is all the Jews fault as they should not be there trying to live as normal a life as is possible.

I haven't assigned fault in these actions other than by the people who did them. Try to stick with reality and what people actually have said instead of turning everything into "joooooos".

Bullish. Later.

 

[docmauser1]

Different laws apply because of the customary International law embodied in the Geneva convention. The Palestinians are subject to Jordanian law under the Geneva conventions while the Israelis are subject to Israeli law under the Geneva conventions. Until the law makers sit and study the terms in G.C 4 that is how it will stay.
If Israeli law had it that stone throwers were executed would you want it to apply to Palestinians, or would you want Jordanian Law to apply.

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

...moral equivelence sems to be you and your ilk's favorite buzz word to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Kind of gives you a free pass in ethics

Do you mean like the murder in cold blood of the parents just the other day, or the murder of 3 Israeli boys last year. Both incidents carried out to incite reprisals by Israel against hamas.

...the murder of 3 Israeli boys followed by the kidnapping and burning alive of an Arab Israeli teenager....

or the burning alive of a Palestinian family in their home....

and you claim "moral equivalence"? There is no difference and there is no justification for any of this, or the murder of the Fogels, or the shooting of the family we are now discussing.

And of course in your eyes it is all the Jews fault as they should not be there trying to live as normal a life as is possible.

I haven't assigned fault in these actions other than by the people who did them. Try to stick with reality and what people actually have said instead of turning everything into "joooooos".

Bullish. Later.

 

[Coyote]

Have they changed their ruling?

It's illegal to give alcohol to a moose in Alaska. Noone changed that either. But time moves on and times change, of course./size]

If not, then you have no point to make.

But off course, i have and do.

I think there is a considerable difference between a military occupation and an intoxicated moose.

The absence of the "military occupation" leaves us with an intoxicated palistanian moose, of course.

There are laws making murder murder illegal....time moves on...and times change. But murder is still murder.

That's a part of the palistanian occupation, of course. "With the blood of jews we redeem blah-blah-blah ... !!", or somesuch bullish.

There is no Palestinian occupation. But if it makes you feel better to endlessly repeat that delusional drivel, feel free.

Look up the treaty made in 1923 by the LoN and you will see that the land was given to the Jews and not the arab muslims. They were given trans Jordan for their homeland. So any "Palestinians " on Jewish land are in fact occupiers of jewish land

Palestinians living on land they've lived on for centuries aren't "occupying" anything. No one else seems to recognize that "treaty", certainly not the Israeli courts.

 

[Coyote]

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

...moral equivelence sems to be you and your ilk's favorite buzz word to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Kind of gives you a free pass in ethics

my ilk, is it a jooo thing?

Nope. But go ahead and try to make it into a "joooo" thing - it's what you do best

Bullish.

Bullshit. Let's be honest here

If you don't like what someone has to say - you make it about "jooooos".

Your "ilk" is the same ilk as any other bigot.

 

[Coyote]

Right now, Israeli law has it that stone throwers can be shot. What remains to be seen is whether it is applied across the board. If only Jewish stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. If only Palestinian stone throwers get shot - that is wrong. This shooting of stone throwers is an Israeli law.

Cool. So, citizens of abu mazen, ie. the occupationally palistanian, get all shot up. Not that "moral equivalence" & "proportionality" bullshit to keep limolibs happy.

...moral equivelence sems to be you and your ilk's favorite buzz word to deflect from uncomfortable realities. Kind of gives you a free pass in ethics

Do you mean like the murder in cold blood of the parents just the other day, or the murder of 3 Israeli boys last year. Both incidents carried out to incite reprisals by Israel against hamas.

...the murder of 3 Israeli boys followed by the kidnapping and burning alive of an Arab Israeli teenager....

or the burning alive of a Palestinian family in their home....

and you claim "moral equivalence"? There is no difference and there is no justification for any of this, or the murder of the Fogels, or the shooting of the family we are now discussing.

And of course in your eyes it is all the Jews fault as they should not be there trying to live as normal a life as is possible.

I haven't assigned fault in these actions other than by the people who did them. Try to stick with reality and what people actually have said instead of turning everything into "joooooos".

Bullish. Later.

Provide links to support your claims then.

 

[rylah]

It's illegal to give alcohol to a moose in Alaska. Noone changed that either. But time moves on and times change, of course./size]But off course, i have and do.

I think there is a considerable difference between a military occupation and an intoxicated moose.

The absence of the "military occupation" leaves us with an intoxicated palistanian moose, of course.

There are laws making murder murder illegal....time moves on...and times change. But murder is still murder.

That's a part of the palistanian occupation, of course. "With the blood of jews we redeem blah-blah-blah ... !!", or somesuch bullish.

There is no Palestinian occupation. But if it makes you feel better to endlessly repeat that delusional drivel, feel free.

Look up the treaty made in 1923 by the LoN and you will see that the land was given to the Jews and not the arab muslims. They were given trans Jordan for their homeland. So any "Palestinians " on Jewish land are in fact occupiers of jewish land

Palestinians living on land they've lived on for centuries aren't "occupying" anything. No one else seems to recognize that "treaty", certainly not the Israeli courts.

Yeah sure, late invaders with no distinct balestinian (or any) culture are
nothing else but occupiers whom for some reasons no one wants in their original Arab homelands.

 

[Phoenall]

It's illegal to give alcohol to a moose in Alaska. Noone changed that either. But time moves on and times change, of course./size]But off course, i have and do.

I think there is a considerable difference between a military occupation and an intoxicated moose.

The absence of the "military occupation" leaves us with an intoxicated palistanian moose, of course.

There are laws making murder murder illegal....time moves on...and times change. But murder is still murder.

That's a part of the palistanian occupation, of course. "With the blood of jews we redeem blah-blah-blah ... !!", or somesuch bullish.

There is no Palestinian occupation. But if it makes you feel better to endlessly repeat that delusional drivel, feel free.

Look up the treaty made in 1923 by the LoN and you will see that the land was given to the Jews and not the arab muslims. They were given trans Jordan for their homeland. So any "Palestinians " on Jewish land are in fact occupiers of jewish land

Palestinians living on land they've lived on for centuries aren't "occupying" anything. No one else seems to recognize that "treaty", certainly not the Israeli courts.

Problem is you have failed to produce any documented proof that these Palestinians actually lived on the land as they claim. 3 times in recent history they were given the chance to hold title to the land, recorded officially in a land registry and they refused because it meant paying taxes and presenting themselves for conscription. The Jews and Christians did not have the same fears and willingly accepted the taxes and duty to their Ottoman leaders, so they now hold title to the land recorded in the land registry.
If no one recognises the LoN Mandate of Palestine then it means that Jordan does not exist because that was how trans Jordan came about. Yet every arab muslim accepts the formation of trans Jordan under this treaty but not the formation of the Jewish NATIONal home why is this ?

 

[docmauser1]

Your "ilk" is the same ilk as any other bigot.

Mucho funny! Applying the method of moral relativism, we discover an ilk of the bigoted pompous self-conceited followers of the cult of "defenders" of the "poor 'n robbed", of course.

 

[docmauser1]

Look up the treaty made in 1923 by the LoN and you will see that the land was given to the Jews and not the arab muslims. They were given trans Jordan for their homeland. So any "Palestinians " on Jewish land are in fact occupiers of jewish land

Palestinians living on land they've lived on for centuries aren't "occupying" anything. No one else seems to recognize that "treaty", certainly not the Israeli courts.

Yeah right. "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population."
Winnie Churchill knew his settling-squatting arabs perfecto, of course.