"It is not a war. It is murder."

[teddyearp]

I thought I responded to the first one I pointed out in my first post in a very fair way.

He pointed out that Israel is creating a reality where they can cut off food, medical supplies, and other necessities. I agree. They can. But they don't. Instead, they ensure that the needs of the Gazan people are met. Israel actually does that BETTER than Hamas does.

So the question on the table is: Is there a BETTER way to conduct a conflict or respond to acts of belligerent violence against one's citizens? What is the objective mark we are trying to hit here, with respect to a response to acts of violence?

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity it becomes necessary to truncate the history of the conflict, the theft of colonial Palestine and the appalling military occupation and its gruesome concomitants...this is textbook Hasbara and this repulsive individual is lifting each response straight from detailed propaganda-software...the signatures are unmistakable!

Note the insistence that those being attacked by Muslim animals do not have a right to retaliate or defend themselves. This is textbook Islamist mentality that can be seen in groups like ISIS and Hamas.

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

You need to understand that the rockets fired by Hamas and the other Islamic terrorist franchises are attacks aimed at Israel. I’m not sure how you missed that.

Those rockets never crossed a border into Israel.

Oh for ***** sake tinmore, you know better than all that. Your fucked up twisted pretzel of your 'truth' has long been unraveled here.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity it becomes necessary to truncate the history of the conflict, the theft of colonial Palestine and the appalling military occupation and its gruesome concomitants...this is textbook Hasbara and this repulsive individual is lifting each response straight from detailed propaganda-software...the signatures are unmistakable!

Note the insistence that those being attacked by Muslim animals do not have a right to retaliate or defend themselves. This is textbook Islamist mentality that can be seen in groups like ISIS and Hamas.

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

You need to understand that the rockets fired by Hamas and the other Islamic terrorist franchises are attacks aimed at Israel. I’m not sure how you missed that.

Those rockets never crossed a border into Israel.

Oh for ***** sake tinmore, you know better than all that. Your fucked up twisted pretzel of your 'truth' has long been unraveled here.

Post a map showing that border.

Cue song and dance.
3
2
1

 

[Shusha]

Team Palestine's arguments boil down to "If Arabs do it -- its permissible. But if Jews do it -- its evil."

They know it. Which is why they don't even bother to create any objective criteria. They know it would reveal them.

 

[teddyearp]

Really tinmore? You have posted enough maps yourself.

Israel is a country recognized by the world NOW. Show me/us where the recognized country of Palestine is NOW.

 

[Roudy]

Shusha

Do you actually use software that creates these scripted responses like he says?

The man made several salient points. Have you responded to any of them in any fair way?

I thought I responded to the first one I pointed out in my first post in a very fair way.

He pointed out that Israel is creating a reality where they can cut off food, medical supplies, and other necessities. I agree. They can. But they don't. Instead, they ensure that the needs of the Gazan people are met. Israel actually does that BETTER than Hamas does.

So the question on the table is: Is there a BETTER way to conduct a conflict or respond to acts of belligerent violence against one's citizens? What is the objective mark we are trying to hit here, with respect to a response to acts of violence?

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity it becomes necessary to truncate the history of the conflict, the theft of colonial Palestine and the appalling military occupation and its gruesome concomitants...this is textbook Hasbara and this repulsive individual is lifting each response straight from detailed propaganda-software...the signatures are unmistakable!

Note the insistence that those being attacked by Muslim animals do not have a right to retaliate or defend themselves. This is textbook Islamist mentality that can be seen in groups like ISIS and Hamas.

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

Muslims always attack and murder the people they claim to be victims of.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Waaaahhhhh....Israel fights back.

By your logic, then Palestinians are fighting back against those who stole their land.

When did Palestine have any land?

The Ottomans ceded land to Palestine in the Treaty of Lausanne.

That is not true. The Treaty of Lausanne doesn't even mention Palestine.

It does not mention Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Iraq either, doofus, what is your point?

Actually, Syria and Iraq ARE mentioned in the Treaty. Lebanon and Jordan were not mentioned because they were not states at that point--they were only the names of cedars and a river.

 

[Roudy]

It is an error to claim that the Ottoman Empire ceded territory TO Palestine.

Let me rephrase that: It is a deliberate falsification to claim that the Ottoman Empire ceded territory TO Palestine.

Ottoman's were defeated along with the their allies the Germans. The entire region was then conquered and then under the control of Allies more specifically the British and French.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Really tinmore? You have posted enough maps yourself.

Israel is a country recognized by the world NOW. Show me/us where the recognized country of Palestine is NOW.

 

[Shusha]

The OP title claims to differentiate between war and murder, with the implication being the former is legally and morally permissible while the latter is not. What distinguishes the justification of killing people in the former and the condemnation of the latter?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The OP title claims to differentiate between war and murder, with the implication being the former is legally and morally permissible while the latter is not. What distinguishes the justification of killing people in the former and the condemnation of the latter?

An occupying power cannot claim self defense against an occupied people.

 

[Ventura77]

Team Palestine's arguments boil down to "If Arabs do it -- its permissible. But if Jews do it -- its evil."

They know it. Which is why they don't even bother to create any objective criteria. They know it would reveal them.

My guess is that this fertile twit will continue to hawk 'objective criteria' until she lures someone into her soiled world of Hasbara: okay princess try this for "objective criteria'...we know that everything stated here by 'Team Palestine' is effortlessly confirmed by leading pre-state and post-state Zionist luminaries: the absolute irreducible hilarity is that your argument is not with Tinmore, or Sobeiski, or Bullet or Abi or me---your argument is with Hiam Weitzman...Theodore Herzl...Menachem Begin...Vlademir Jabotinsky...Moshe Dayan, and many others...the fatal flaw in Zionism is that the architects lie on one side of the debate and the post-67 revisionists on the other...care to hazard a guess which one has greater authority? ROTFLMAO!!!!

 

[Ventura77]

Note the insistence here again that 'Israel' defends itself against 'acts of violence?' To even pose such absurdity it becomes necessary to truncate the history of the conflict, the theft of colonial Palestine and the appalling military occupation and its gruesome concomitants...this is textbook Hasbara and this repulsive individual is lifting each response straight from detailed propaganda-software...the signatures are unmistakable!

Note the insistence that those being attacked by Muslim animals do not have a right to retaliate or defend themselves. This is textbook Islamist mentality that can be seen in groups like ISIS and Hamas.

Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.

You need to understand that the rockets fired by Hamas and the other Islamic terrorist franchises are attacks aimed at Israel. I’m not sure how you missed that.

Those rockets never crossed a border into Israel.

Oh for ***** sake tinmore, you know better than all that. Your fucked up twisted pretzel of your 'truth' has long been unraveled here.

More empty posing...

 

[Hollie]

The OP title claims to differentiate between war and murder, with the implication being the former is legally and morally permissible while the latter is not. What distinguishes the justification of killing people in the former and the condemnation of the latter?

An occupying power cannot claim self defense against an occupied people.

Sure they can. You seem stuck on this silly notion that your Islamic terrorist heroes can commit murder and mayhem without consequence.

 

[fncceo]

18:46
Chris Hedges on the Gaza Massacre - "It is not a war. It is murder."

evelkidnievel
•
14K views5 years ago

That's not Chris Hedges ... it's John Lithgow

 

[Shusha]

The OP title claims to differentiate between war and murder, with the implication being the former is legally and morally permissible while the latter is not. What distinguishes the justification of killing people in the former and the condemnation of the latter?

An occupying power cannot claim self defense against an occupied people.

The objective criteria, then, is that all actions by the occupier are considered murder and all actions by the occupied are considered justified defense. Have I got that right?

 

[Hollie]

The OP title claims to differentiate between war and murder, with the implication being the former is legally and morally permissible while the latter is not. What distinguishes the justification of killing people in the former and the condemnation of the latter?

An occupying power cannot claim self defense against an occupied people.

Sure they can. You seem stuck on this silly notion that your Islamic terrorist heroes can commit murder and mayhem without consequence.

Hollie do you ever venture outside for a walk in the park or a hamburger? All lies and no play make Hollie a dull propaganda-parrot...squawk!!! LOL

Another of your pointless tirades.

 

[Ventura77]

18:46
Chris Hedges on the Gaza Massacre - "It is not a war. It is murder."

evelkidnievel
•
14K views5 years ago

That's not Chris Hedges ... it's John Lithgow

Damn! and to think...I was beginning to assume you were stupid...who knew?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The OP title claims to differentiate between war and murder, with the implication being the former is legally and morally permissible while the latter is not. What distinguishes the justification of killing people in the former and the condemnation of the latter?

An occupying power cannot claim self defense against an occupied people.

The objective criteria, then, is that all actions by the occupier are considered murder and all actions by the occupied are considered justified defense. Have I got that right?

Pretty much.

 

[teddyearp]

Really tinmore? You have posted enough maps yourself.

Israel is a country recognized by the world NOW. Show me/us where the recognized country of Palestine is NOW.

Typical response from the pretzel twister.

 

[Shusha]

The OP title claims to differentiate between war and murder, with the implication being the former is legally and morally permissible while the latter is not. What distinguishes the justification of killing people in the former and the condemnation of the latter?

An occupying power cannot claim self defense against an occupied people.

The objective criteria, then, is that all actions by the occupier are considered murder and all actions by the occupied are considered justified defense. Have I got that right?

Pretty much.

So here's what I see as being problematic in your worldview. Its not actually objective. Its that the "good guy" can do no wrong and the "bad guy" is always wrong. The actual actions are irrelevant in your worldview. Any action is permissible. (read: moral and legal) if it is done for the "right" cause or for the "right" guys. You are claiming, in fact, that there is NO WAY to objectively differentiate between murder and war. They are nonsense terms in your worldview. There are only "good" guys and "bad" guys. What good guys do is "good" and what bad guys do is "bad".

But its entirely subjective as to who is "good" and who is "bad". I would suggest there should be another measure.

And (actually unrelated to above):

Who is the occupied and who is the occupier? Its a civil war where each claims to be occupied by foreigners.