Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Pali's just never learn. Oh how they & their supporters will cry over all the dead Palestinians when Israel retaliates. It's called Palestinian mentality.
Terror in Tel Aviv: Israeli Families Mourn Victims
Time to bomb the Muslim shooter's neighborhood?... a 500-to-1 kill ratio would work nicely... as an opening move.Pali's just never learn. Oh how they & their supporters will cry over all the dead Palestinians when Israel retaliates. It's called Palestinian mentality.
Terror in Tel Aviv: Israeli Families Mourn Victims
The Hamas Charter spells out in exacting derail that greed and hate.I'm always floored when people cheer on the terrorism.
Anything wrong with living in peace ?
The palestinians got their 80%
Just how greedy and hateful do they have to be ?
I'm always floored when people cheer on the terrorism.
Anything wrong with living in peace ?
The palestinians got their 80%
Just how greedy and hateful do they have to be ?
I am always floored by the double standards of the anti-Israel posters. Both in supporting and celebrating terrorism (when it is against Israelis [read: Jews]) and in failing to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants as legitimate targets (when it is against Israelis [read: Jews]).
I would criticize the actions of Islamic terrorists and would applaud the resistance of the Israelis to the apartheid and fascist goals of an Islamist state.I am always floored by the double standards of the anti-Israel posters. Both in supporting and celebrating terrorism (when it is against Israelis [read: Jews]) and in failing to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants as legitimate targets (when it is against Israelis [read: Jews]).
I don't get it. Do you believe the Palestinians should passively accept occupation and Jewish rule indefinitely? Do you criticize the actions of the French Resistance against the Germans. the ANC actions against the Apartheid state in South Africa, the Algerians against the French. Come on what is your position?
Come on what is your position?
Come on what is your position?
My position with respect to this thread?
1. Indiscriminate attacks on non-combatants are morally and legally wrong no matter who does it.
2. Deliberate attacks on non-combatants are morally and legally wrong no matter who does it.
3. Collateral damage while attacking a legitimate military target for the purpose of defending your own population is morally and legally defensible, if tragic and regrettable.
4. Responsibility for the prevention of civilian, non-combatant deaths rests with all parties to the conflict.
5. Applying two different sets of rules to two different populations based on their ethnicity, culture, religion, DNA, nationality, political position is morally reprehensible.
Its really the last one that I was pointing out. When someone says and attempts to justify a concept such as: "by any means necessary" but applies that concept to only one side in the conflict -- its hypocrisy. When someone labels a civilian conducting non-combat activities (such as making his livelihood in a bar) a "good target" but applies that concept to only side in the conflict -- its hypocrisy.
Come on what is your position?
My position with respect to this thread?
1. Indiscriminate attacks on non-combatants are morally and legally wrong no matter who does it.
2. Deliberate attacks on non-combatants are morally and legally wrong no matter who does it.
3. Collateral damage while attacking a legitimate military target for the purpose of defending your own population is morally and legally defensible, if tragic and regrettable.
4. Responsibility for the prevention of civilian, non-combatant deaths rests with all parties to the conflict.
5. Applying two different sets of rules to two different populations based on their ethnicity, culture, religion, DNA, nationality, political position is morally reprehensible.
Its really the last one that I was pointing out. When someone says and attempts to justify a concept such as: "by any means necessary" but applies that concept to only one side in the conflict -- its hypocrisy. When someone labels a civilian conducting non-combat activities (such as making his livelihood in a bar) a "good target" but applies that concept to only side in the conflict -- its hypocrisy.
Well, you suddenly made rules that make anything a more powerful occupation and colonial does in murdering the oppressed and/or colonized legal and moral, while a people defending themselves and/or resisting oppression or colonization a crime. Congratulations. You truly are a tool.
No, evicting native people to make room for a foreign colony is what is racist and morally reprehensible.
Come on what is your position?
My position with respect to this thread?
1. Indiscriminate attacks on non-combatants are morally and legally wrong no matter who does it.
2. Deliberate attacks on non-combatants are morally and legally wrong no matter who does it.
3. Collateral damage while attacking a legitimate military target for the purpose of defending your own population is morally and legally defensible, if tragic and regrettable.
4. Responsibility for the prevention of civilian, non-combatant deaths rests with all parties to the conflict.
5. Applying two different sets of rules to two different populations based on their ethnicity, culture, religion, DNA, nationality, political position is morally reprehensible.
Its really the last one that I was pointing out. When someone says and attempts to justify a concept such as: "by any means necessary" but applies that concept to only one side in the conflict -- its hypocrisy. When someone labels a civilian conducting non-combat activities (such as making his livelihood in a bar) a "good target" but applies that concept to only side in the conflict -- its hypocrisy.
Well, you suddenly made rules that make anything a more powerful occupation and colonial does in murdering the oppressed and/or colonized legal and moral, while a people defending themselves and/or resisting oppression or colonization a crime. Congratulations. You truly are a tool.
No, evicting native people to make room for a foreign colony is what is racist and morally reprehensible.
The only native evicted were the Judaic people and the main colonizers were the Arab Muslims in the 7th century and on. The turks really didn't settle there much, just administered it from afar.
Pali's just never learn. Oh how they & their supporters will cry over all the dead Palestinians when Israel retaliates. It's called Palestinian mentality.
Terror in Tel Aviv: Israeli Families Mourn Victims
"Alon served as a combat soldier in the Golani Brigade of the Israel Defense Forces"
The only native evicted were the Judaic people and the main colonizers were the Arab Muslims in the 7th century and on. The turks really didn't settle there much, just administered it from afar.
Pali's just never learn. Oh how they & their supporters will cry over all the dead Palestinians when Israel retaliates. It's called Palestinian mentality.
Terror in Tel Aviv: Israeli Families Mourn Victims
"Alon served as a combat soldier in the Golani Brigade of the Israel Defense Forces"
He did his duty to his country, like every patriotic Israeli. Your point?
