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

[Ventura77]

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.

Do you mean to tell me that no one has bothered to explain to you who is 'occupied?" and who 'occupies'? Do you imagine in the febrile, convoluted recesses of you brain that Palestinians 'occupy' the Israelis? If so may I humbly recommend and good psychiatrist whose specialty is cognitive disorders...?

 

[abi]

Who is the occupied and who is the occupier?

Those who have been there for centuries are occupied by those who came from a foreign land in just the last century.

That's pretty obvious and the fact you need someone to explain it is telling.

 

[Shusha]

Who is the occupied and who is the occupier?

Those who have been there for centuries are occupied by those who came from a foreign land in just the last century.

That's pretty obvious and the fact you need someone to explain it is telling.

The objective criteria, then, is that the people who have been there longer have a superior claim.

The Jewish people, collectively, have been there for millennia. Why is their claim not superior to those who have only been there for centuries?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who is the occupied and who is the occupier?

Those who have been there for centuries are occupied by those who came from a foreign land in just the last century.

That's pretty obvious and the fact you need someone to explain it is telling.

Who was there when the Muslims came to occupy?

 

[abi]

The Jewish people, collectively, have been there for millennia.

Ridiculously false. Some perhaps, most converted to Christianity a few centuries after Christ and then later to Islam. Then, they appear after another conversion, this time to Judaism in what is now Turkey and southern Russia before spreading across Europe. These people only immigrated to the ME in the last century.

 

[Shusha]

The Jewish people, collectively, have been there for millennia.

Ridiculously false. Some perhaps, ...

I take this as acknowledgement that at least SOME Jewish people have been in the land for millennia. And that indeed, the Jewish people originated in that land. We agree so far?

 

[abi]

The Jewish people, collectively, have been there for millennia.

Ridiculously false. Some perhaps, ...

I take this as acknowledgement that at least SOME Jewish people have been in the land for millennia. And that indeed, the Jewish people originated in that land. We agree so far?

Actually, if we want to talk in biblical terms, Abraham was born in what is today, Iraq. But we can agree that the Jewish people, collectively, have NOT been there (in Palestine) for millennia.

 

[Ventura77]

The Jewish people, collectively, have been there for millennia.

Ridiculously false. Some perhaps, ...

I take this as acknowledgement that at least SOME Jewish people have been in the land for millennia. And that indeed, the Jewish people originated in that land. We agree?

Not unless you find some genetic bridge between the ancient Semitic Hebrew tribes and the Eastern European descendants of Khazar-converts to Judaism...face the unalterable fact that the Arab/Palestinians have a 13 century residency right that was trampled and dismissed by Zionist invaders posing as Semites 'reclaiming their ancestral lands'...this is why you are obliged to lie, the truth remains your sworn enemy!

 

[Shusha]

The Jewish people, collectively, have been there for millennia.

Ridiculously false. Some perhaps, ...

I take this as acknowledgement that at least SOME Jewish people have been in the land for millennia. And that indeed, the Jewish people originated in that land. We agree so far?

Actually, if we want to talk in biblical terms, Abraham was born in what is today, Iraq. But we can agree that the Jewish people, collectively, have NOT been there (in Palestine) for millennia.

We can't use religious texts for academic discussion, remember?

You are actually putting forth the claim, despite your last post, that at least SOME of the Jewish people have not been there for millennia and you reject the idea that the Jewish people originated there?

 

[fncceo]

Europeans were right in taking over North America as Indian people had already migrated to Europe by that time ...

It was no longer their homeland.

 

[Shusha]

You know, its an interesting way to look at it.

Under what conditions can an indigenous peoples LOSE their rights to their homeland?

 

[Roudy]

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.

I think he does more to that pretzel than just twist it.

 

[abi]

We can't use religious texts for academic discussion, remember?

You are actually putting forth the claim, despite your last post, that at least SOME of the Jewish people have not been there for millennia and you reject the idea that the Jewish people originated there?

I was humoring you and am not aware of extra-biblical sources for Abraham being born in what is today Iraq, not Palestine and certainly not Israel which was never anything prior to 1948.

 

[Ventura77]

You know, its an interesting way to look at it.

Under what conditions can an indigenous peoples LOSE their rights to their homeland?

...oh but you should know the answer to this plaintive question better than anyone no? When the United Nations was bullied into 'recognizing' a state that was the direct result of a criminal ethnic cleansing the fledgling organization violated the letter and spirit of its own charter and sacrificed any putative credibility it sought...power rules over quixotic ideals...no?

 

[Roudy]

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.

Do you mean to tell me that no one has bothered to explain to you who is 'occupied?" and who 'occupies'? Do you imagine in the febrile, convoluted recesses of you brain that Palestinians 'occupy' the Israelis? If so may I humbly recommend and good psychiatrist whose specialty is cognitive disorders...?

It appears dufus failed in world history as well. is Achmed claiming that the Persians, Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Ottomans never conquered or occupied other people's and lands? All that happened in Israel is the Jews regained their ancient religious, cultural, and spiritual homeland after it had been attacked, conquered, squatted on, and occupied by a long list of invaders throughout history, including the so called Palestinians who are basically Arab invaders and squatters.

 

[Roudy]

We can't use religious texts for academic discussion, remember?

You are actually putting forth the claim, despite your last post, that at least SOME of the Jewish people have not been there for millennia and you reject the idea that the Jewish people originated there?

I was humoring you and am not aware of extra-biblical sources for Abraham being born in what is today Iraq, not Palestine and certainly not Israel which was never anything prior to 1948.

Did Abdul say Israel was never anything prior to 1948? Bwahahahahaha. Ya gotta love it. Then why were the Muslims and Christians continually fighting over it, and why was it mentioned in both the Koran and New Testament as the promised land of the Jews?

 

[abu afak]

Palestinian population grew 8-fold since 1948
http://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?id=386989

The population that year was 1.4 million, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics said, while at the end of 2010 it was estimated at 11 million globally, and 5.5 million in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, while 5.7 million Jews reside in the area...""

9x in Israel

""The bureau noted that 154,000 Palestinians remained in the newly-created state of Israel in 1948, and today number 1.36 million. Demographic trends among Palestinian Israelis mirror the youth-bulge in the Palestinian territories, with 40.6% of Palestinians in Israel under the age of 15.""

+

 

[Roudy]

You know, its an interesting way to look at it.

Under what conditions can an indigenous peoples LOSE their rights to their homeland?

...oh but you should know the answer to this plaintive question better than anyone no? When the United Nations was bullied into 'recognizing' a state that was the direct result of a criminal ethnic cleansing the fledgling organization violated the letter and spirit of its own charter and sacrificed any putative credibility it sought...power rules over quixotic ideals...no?

Dozens of other Arab Muslim states in the ME were carved out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire, all of which were recognized by the UN and the world, at the same time that Israel was reestablished. But apparently the only recognized state that Arab Muslims have an issue with is Israel, which comprises of less that 1% of the land in the Middle East.

Funny how the one non Muslim state is now the most advanced, free, democratic, and tolerant state, compared to the way Arab Muslim shitholes are today.

 

[Ventura77]

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.

Do you mean to tell me that no one has bothered to explain to you who is 'occupied?" and who 'occupies'? Do you imagine in the febrile, convoluted recesses of you brain that Palestinians 'occupy' the Israelis? If so may I humbly recommend and good psychiatrist whose specialty is cognitive disorders...?

It appears dufus failed in world history as well. is Achmed claiming that the Persians, Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Ottomans never conquered or occupied other people's and lands? All that happened in Israel is the Jews regained their ancient religious, cultural, and spiritual homeland after it had been attacked, conquered, squatted on, and occupied by a long list of invaders throughout history, including the so called Palestinians who are basically Arab invaders and squatters.

Says the F-student and avowed propaganda-troll????? This 'reclamation' fantasy/lie is perhaps the central pillar of your crude architecture of lies Goober...two immutable facts contradict this nonsense:

#1 There is no precedent for an absentee land-claim which spans 13---count em rube---centuries...LOL

#2 There is no DNA connection between Zionist Jews and the ancient Hebrew Semites...

 

[fncceo]

I'm not sure what arguing about ancient history is going to accomplish. Jews are in Israel and we're there to stay.

להתמודד עם זה, מפסידים