Palestinian animals blow up civilian bus in Jerusalem

[Roudy]

For all the nay-sayers, false flag enthusiasts and jerks in general.

Hamas says a member of its military wing carried out the bombing of a Jerusalem bus on Monday.



Jerusalem (CNN)A Hamas operative was responsible for Monday's terror bombing of a bus in Jerusalem that wounded nearly two dozen people, Israeli police said Thursday.





The suspect, Abdel Hamid Abu Srour, 19, died of his injuries Wednesday evening after he was critically wounded in the attack.
"Israel police and the IDF, 24 hours after the attack, arrested a number of suspects who are Hamas operatives in the Bethlehem area who helped plan the operation and execute it," said a statement from police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld.


Jerusalem bus bombing work of Hamas operative, police say - CNN.com

But wait, this is an act of heroic resistance fighting! Ha ha ha.

 

[Roudy]

1. The Jews were not there "first", as you well know.

2. Jews, had no presence after Christianity was declared the state religion of Rome, the people that were allowed to live there had to convert to Christianity from whatever religion they practiced to Christianity.

3. Using a self-serving piece of fiction to justify land claims is just nutty.

Of course the Jews were there, ancient Israel existed way before Christianity and definitely before Muslim invaders set foot in that land. Despite all the invasions and pogroms, they maintained a presence in the land and especially during the last 700 years of Ottoman rule, their numbers increased dramatically. This is undeniable historical fact.

What this has to do with Palestinian Muslim animals blowing up a busload of Jewish civilians in Jerusalem which is definitely the historical religious capital of the Jewish people, who knows.

 

[Phoenall]

You should apply that to the Israeli Jews.

It's a false comparison. The French did not bomb Arab residential areas with fighter bombers of La Casbah in Algiers and the British did not bomb residential areas of Derry where Catholics lived.

The question is simple, why would anyone expect that the Palestinians would behave differently towards the Jews than the Catholics in Ireland towards the British and the Algerians towards the French.

There must be a reason why we have people railing at the Palestinians calling them animals while few called the Catholics in Ireland "animals" when they did the same things. In fact, I recall many Americans supported the actions of the IRA. And, only the French railed against the Algerians, the rest of the world, including much of Europe, saw the Algerians as freedom fighters.

Why should the Terrorist Palestine's be treated any different that we treated the terrorist Algerians? We kill them until they stop terrorising. It is that simple.

I am not discussing the behavior of the Israelis, I am asking why does anyone expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people under the same conditions have behaved in the past as the Irish against the British and the Algerians against the French.

By the way, the Algerians never stopped killing the French until they defeated them and expelled them from Algeria.

You are inventing a premise you assume to be correct. And assuming everyone else accepts it as so.

What doesn't everyone accept? It is difficult not to accept fact.

We are still waiting for you to produce any facts, all you ever produce is LIES, anti semitic propaganda and anything that can be manipulated into supporting your racist POV

 

[Phoenall]

You should apply that to the Israeli Jews.

It's a false comparison. The French did not bomb Arab residential areas with fighter bombers of La Casbah in Algiers and the British did not bomb residential areas of Derry where Catholics lived.

The question is simple, why would anyone expect that the Palestinians would behave differently towards the Jews than the Catholics in Ireland towards the British and the Algerians towards the French.

There must be a reason why we have people railing at the Palestinians calling them animals while few called the Catholics in Ireland "animals" when they did the same things. In fact, I recall many Americans supported the actions of the IRA. And, only the French railed against the Algerians, the rest of the world, including much of Europe, saw the Algerians as freedom fighters.

Why should the Terrorist Palestine's be treated any different that we treated the terrorist Algerians? We kill them until they stop terrorising. It is that simple.

I am not discussing the behavior of the Israelis, I am asking why does anyone expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people under the same conditions have behaved in the past as the Irish against the British and the Algerians against the French.

By the way, the Algerians never stopped killing the French until they defeated them and expelled them from Algeria.

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

Because it is against International law, IHL and the Geneva conventions. And violence like this never sorts any problems, it just creates more. As shown by South Africa which is the murder capital of the world, and has lost its once thriving tourist industry. It is now fuelled by neo Marxist ideologies and actions with the only good parts being white enclaves surrounded by armed guards and fences.

 

[Phoenall]

Why should the Terrorist Palestine's be treated any different that we treated the terrorist Algerians? We kill them until they stop terrorising. It is that simple.

I am not discussing the behavior of the Israelis, I am asking why does anyone expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people under the same conditions have behaved in the past as the Irish against the British and the Algerians against the French.

By the way, the Algerians never stopped killing the French until they defeated them and expelled them from Algeria.

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

False analogy.

How can the analogy be false? Just saying so doesn't make it so. They are perfect analogies.

By the same token you just saying they are also does not make them so. You need to support your claims with evidence showing that they two actions are the same.

 

[Phoenall]

1. The Jews were not there "first", as you well know.

2. Jews, had no presence after Christianity was declared the state religion of Rome, the people that were allowed to live there had to convert to Christianity from whatever religion they practiced to Christianity.

3. Using a self-serving piece of fiction to justify land claims is just nutty.

Of course the Jews were there, ancient Israel existed way before Christianity and definitely before Muslim invaders set foot in that land. Despite all the invasions and pogroms, they maintained a presence in the land and especially during the last 700 years of Ottoman rule, their numbers increased dramatically. This is undeniable historical fact.

What this has to do with Palestinian Muslim animals blowing up a busload of Jewish civilians in Jerusalem which is definitely the historical religious capital of the Jewish people, who knows.

Why is it that monte deliberately ignores any history prior to 70 C.E. and the writings of the early Christians, muslims, crusaders and Ottomans that show that Jews have always lived in Palestine and they have always worked the land. They were so good that after failing 3 times to colonise Palestine with arab muslims the Palestinians had to rely on Jews from Europe to make the land fertile again. And the gift of wheat made in the latter part of the 19C was from Jewish farms who showed the few arab share croppers how to get a return on the land.

 

[Phoenall]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

Good point. What state did Egypt and Jordan occupy between '48 and '67?

Why are the West Bank and Gaza universally called the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

mandate of Palestine of course, haven't you been reading the posts that tell you this ?

Because that is what they are, even before the arab muslims invented the state of Palestine in 1988. They were even called this when they were occupied by Egypt and Jordan.

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

You're befuddled regarding some point you're hoping to make with false analogies. The so-called "oppression" afflicting the arabs-moslems occupying the disputed territories is of their own making. Multiple opportunities for peaceful coexistence have been rejected by the Arabs-Moslems. If you knew anything of the Hamas Charter, you would understand that such a statement of islamo- supremacy leaves no room for negotiation.

How can the analogy possibly be false? It is an exact analogy.

Are you saying that the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are not being oppressed.

My question though is why would it be expected that the Palestinians behave differently than the Irish Catholics, the Algerians or the non-whites of South Africa?

False analogy. The Hamas Charter is not about "resistance". It is about islamo-fascism.

The question is: "why would you expect the Israelis, under constant attack from Arab-Moslem aggressors to not respond with force of arms to those attacks"?

Indeed, Israel must defend its colonial project.

Just as Saudi must defend its colonial project, or the Catholic church it's colonial project.

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

You're befuddled regarding some point you're hoping to make with false analogies. The so-called "oppression" afflicting the arabs-moslems occupying the disputed territories is of their own making. Multiple opportunities for peaceful coexistence have been rejected by the Arabs-Moslems. If you knew anything of the Hamas Charter, you would understand that such a statement of islamo- supremacy leaves no room for negotiation.

How can the analogy possibly be false? It is an exact analogy.

Are you saying that the Muslims and Christians of Palestine are not being oppressed.

My question though is why would it be expected that the Palestinians behave differently than the Irish Catholics, the Algerians or the non-whites of South Africa?

False analogy. The Hamas Charter is not about "resistance". It is about islamo-fascism.

The question is: "why would you expect the Israelis, under constant attack from Arab-Moslem aggressors to not respond with force of arms to those attacks"?

I expect the Israelis to respond against violent resistance by the Palestinians. That was not the issue.

I am simply asking a question as to why many people that support Israel expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics, the Algerians, the non-white South Africans and most any other national or ethnic liberation group.

Then lets go one step further shall we and ask why are the Palestinians attacking Israel illegally according to the UN and HRW, using illegal weapons that are an act of war and a war crime.
Once they do this it is no longer resistance but aggression that needs to be dealt with by force of arms.

 

[Phoenall]

There has to be the existence of a sovereign state for it to be occupied.

It makes no difference if there was or was not a sovereign state prior to occupation. Just inhabitants matter.

For example, there was no sovereign multi-cultural ruled state of South Africa and the Algerians were ruled by the Ottomans prior to the French.

Empire is a different matter.

You should inform yourself of historical facts

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Article 4 of the Mandate, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands not required for public use.

Who is occupying Gaza, btw? The inhabitants that matter?

What is your point? The British declared about the same thing about the settlement of Ireland by the British. That the Jews were settled on the land by the British and established a colony in Palestine is not in doubt.

My question is, why would people that support Israel expect that the Palestinians would behave any differently than other people placed under similar conditions and I used as an example the Irish Catholics under the British, the Algerians under the French, the non-whites under the Boers in South Africa. We could add the Tamils of Sri Lanka as another example.

While it has nothing to do with my question, as far as Gaza is concerned, the Hostages Case at the Nuremberg Trials is precedent for the determination that the blockade, control of borders, air space and territorial sea combined with Israel's ability to re-enter Gaza at will, makes Gaza occupied.

Here is the pertinent part of the ICJ's (International Court of Justice) decision for your reference:

"26. Israel maintains that following the 2005 disengagement, it is no longer an occupying power in Gaza as it does not exercise effective control over the area.

27. However, the prevalent view within the international community is that Israel remains an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. In general, this view is based on the scope and degree of control that Israel has retained over the territory of Gaza following the 2005 disengagement – including, inter alia, Israel’s exercise of control over border crossings, the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip, and the airspace of Gaza; its periodic military incursions within Gaza; its enforcement of no-go areas within Gaza near the border where Israeli settlements used to be; and its regulation of the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency and control of taxes and customs duties. The retention of such competences by Israel over the territory of Gaza even after the 2005 disengagement overall supports the conclusion that the authority retained by Israel amounts to effective control.

28. Although it no longer maintains a military presence in Gaza, Israel has not only shown the ability to conduct incursions into Gaza at will, but also expressly reserved the right to do so as required by military necessity. This consideration is potentially significant considering that there is support in international case law for the conclusion that it is not a prerequisite that a State maintain continuous presence in a territory in order to qualify as an occupying power. In particular, the ICTY has held that the law of occupation would also apply to areas where a state possesses “the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt.” In this respect, it is also noted that the geographic proximity of the Gaza Strip to Israel potentially facilitates the ability of Israel to exercise effective control over the territory, despite the lack of a continuous military presence.

29. Overall, there is a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that Israel continues to be an occupying power in Gaza despite the 2005 disengagement. The Office has therefore proceeded on the basis that the situation in Gaza can be considered within the framework of an international armed conflict in view of the continuing military occupation by Israel.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Your serial cutting and pasting has been addressed both repeatedly and tediously.

You mean presenting the facts with sources. Something you know little about.

Still waiting for the source to be presented, and not fobbed of with some publication based on arab muslim facts

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, you are discussing the Israelis. Why would you expect the Israelis not to respond with force to acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists?

The Israelis have every right to respond to acts of violent resistance to their rule. That's not my question or point.

My question is why would anyone expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than the Irish Catholics via-a-vis the British, the Algerians vis-a-vis the French, the non-white South Africans vis-a-vis the Boers etc.

False analogy.

How can the analogy be false? Just saying so doesn't make it so. They are perfect analogies.

The analogy is false because the US and Western nations have designated Hamas and many other Palestinian groups who carry out such actions as terrorist.

Yet he keeps asking "why should anyone behave any differently" when a Palestinian animal commits an unconscionable act of blowing up a bus load of people. Of course it's quite strange to an antisemite, so he keeps asking, "why shouldn't Arab Muslims have the right to slaughter Jews?" Ha ha ha.

The IRA, the ANC, the FLN and the Tamil Tigers were designated as terrorist groups. Mandela was deemed a terrorist by the U.S. until recently.

Again, my question is:

Why would supporters of Israel expect the Palestinians to behave any differently than these other groups?

It has nothing to do with the slaughter of anyone, it is a simple question that no one is able to answer.

They don't, they expect them all to accept they face death every time they commit a terrorist act and not to whine about it. As soon as they deliberately target children they should be put on a worldwide list of terror groups to be avoided. Any person/nation giving them any support should face international repercussions up to and including armed assault.

Remember the IRA being taken out by the SAS in Gibraltar, and sending shockwaves through the IRA as they were not safe anywhere in the world. And the Pope turning his back on the IRA monsters who gave Catholicism a very bad name.