Terror In Tel Aviv

[MJB12741]

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

 

[montelatici]

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"

 

[Kondor3]

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.

 

[fanger]

"Alon served as a combat soldier in the Golani Brigade of the Israel Defense Forces"
he must have been in the israelí reserve good target i´m sure there are many to follow

 

[Boston1]

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 ?

 

[Hollie]

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 ?

The Hamas Charter spells out in exacting derail that greed and hate.

 

[Shusha]

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]).

 

[montelatici]

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 ?

How do Palestinians get 80%? Are you going to remove the Hashemites from Jordan and make room for the Palestinians currently in Palestine. Would Hashemite royals leave peacefully? Would the U.S. approve the regime change? It could be a solution, tell us more.

 

[montelatici]

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?

 

[Hollie]

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?

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.

 

[Shusha]

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.

 

[montelatici]

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.

 

[Hollie]

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.

"No, evicting native people to make room for a foreign colony is what is racist and morally reprehensible."

Interesting comment as the above describes the history of Islamist colonialism both in the disputed territories and across Europe with regard to islamo-history.

What a shame your knowledge of history is so stunted.

 

[Boston1]

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.

 

[Shusha]

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.

Well, in the context of this thread, that is: terrorism and murder of non-combatants, feel free to come up with your own set of criteria and we can discuss them in the context of both morality and legality. And you can demonstrate your ability to apply them equally to both sides.

 

[montelatici]

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.

When did the Muslims evict the Judaic people? The only natives that were evicted were the Canaanites. Evicted by the Judaic people.

 

[Lipush]

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?

 

[montelatici]

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.

The Judaic people could not have been natives. There were no Judaic people in Palestine when the Muslims invaded. The people were Christian and only slowly converted to Islam. There was no colonization, just Muslim rulers.

 

[MJB12741]

Want peace? Palestinians need to learn the first law of the hole. When you're already in one --- Stop digging!

 

[montelatici]

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?

A soldier serving in the Golani Brigade is a combatant.