• U.N. Envoy Says Israeli Settlements ‘Undermine’ Peace Talks
    48 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;50628259]What does that even mean[/QUOTE] Continued support of Israel by USA, politically, economically and militarily.
hakimhakim is all but actively stating that he is advocating for putting in place the Hamas Charter of driving the Jews into the sea, also known as genocide.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50630849]hakimhakim is all but actively stating that he is advocating for putting in place the Hamas Charter of driving the Jews into the sea, also known as genocide.[/QUOTE] Please accuse me of being an extremist/genocide advocade/anti-semitist so we can disregard my points, so we can continue be in denial of our current state. One of the important first step towards self- improvement, is acceptance one one's current state, but I guess we failed even that after half a century. I can only imagine the frustration of the UN envoys as they survey and gave out their recommendation which will never be taken seriously anyway, to the likes of you lot.
[QUOTE=hakimhakim;50628616] But of course, for Zionist, the only thing that can never be done, is come to term that they are the foreign pathogen. A half-century denial of that fact is necessary for the conquest. [/QUOTE] Let's be honest, here-- you don't mean 'Zionists', you mean 'Israelis'. Your hate is towards any person there that would defend and wish to remain in the homeland they've been in for nearly a century-- which likely amounts to literally all of them. The only difference is, you realize that using the word 'Zionists' would be fine, while using the word 'Israelis' would get you banned. That doesn't change the meaning or intent of your post. You are referring to an entire ethnic group of people as a disease, and you try to disguise your hateful, Hitler-like rambling by pretending that your hatred is aimed towards a political movement, rather than Israelis themselves.
Wish people understood how it's not the entire Israeli government supporting settlements, it's only the portion that's allied to the main party. Just a result of the terrible structure of Israeli parliament.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50631863]Let's be honest, here-- you don't mean 'Zionists', you mean 'Israelis'. Your hate is towards any person there that would defend and wish to remain in the homeland they've been in for nearly a century-- which likely amounts to literally all of them. The only difference is, you realize that using the word 'Zionists' would be fine, while using the word 'Israelis' would get you banned. That doesn't change the meaning or intent of your post. You are referring to an entire ethnic group of people as a disease, and you try to disguise your hateful, Hitler-like rambling by pretending that your hatred is aimed towards a political movement, rather than Israelis themselves.[/QUOTE] No. You're putting words in my mouth with your premature extrapolation. I already explained what I mean precisely. It's you who don't wish to see it as it is.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50632318]You are the one who is entrenched. You are so keen on this Zionist conquest narrative that you dont see the point, the point being an awful lot of Jews in Israel were born there. Even in 48 it was like that. But you cant see that, because obv if it wasnt for the Zionist, palestinians would live happily ever after, right?[/QUOTE] Awful lot of Jews were born everywhere since forever, including Palestine. They resides everywhere, and that is all good and well. Where they were born, or live, is not the problem here. The problem is the *method* of which they occupy that specific piece of land that they are occupying now.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;50627473]A soldier who shoots a wounded terrorist lying on the ground gets paraded around as a hero. A court of law determines that he was guilty of homicide, the entire country is outraged and calls for his "traitor officer" that gave testimony proving his guilt - to be put on trial for treachery.[/QUOTE] And in recent events a terrorist in an airport in Instanbul started a shooting attack. Cops infiltrated the area in attempt to neutralise him, and when he was shot to the ground he blew himself up seconds later, killing 41 people in the process. [url]http://nypost.com/2016/06/29/death-toll-rises-to-41-in-suspected-isis-attack-at-istanbul-airport/[/url] In such an event, how far fetched is the idea that he could've waited for more people to get closer just so he could kill more victims with the explosion? If we're talking about people who have the potential to hide explosives on their body and not hesitate to blow themselves up, when exactly can we deem a terrorist neutralised? This isn't a discussion of morality, this is a discussion of safety.
[QUOTE=mrkaki;50632748]And in recent events a terrorist in an airport in Instanbul started a shooting attack. Cops infiltrated the area in attempt to neutralise him, and when he was shot to the ground he blew himself up seconds later, killing 41 people in the process. [url]http://nypost.com/2016/06/29/death-toll-rises-to-41-in-suspected-isis-attack-at-istanbul-airport/[/url] In such an event, how far fetched is the idea that he could've waited for more people to get closer just so he could kill more victims with the explosion? If we're talking about people who have the potential to hide explosives on their body and not hesitate to blow themselves up, when exactly can we deem a terrorist neutralised? This isn't a discussion of morality, this is a discussion of safety.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the video of that Palestinian getting finished off showed a bunch of soldiers calmly standing around him I don't there was any concern that he had explosives on him. If I'm looking at the right video there are numerous soldiers and ambulances right next to the dude, if they did it because he was still a threat they conveniently forgot the evacuate the area.
[QUOTE=Monkah;50631863]Let's be honest, here-- you don't mean 'Zionists', you mean 'Israelis'. Your hate is towards any person there that would defend and wish to remain in the homeland they've been in for nearly a century-- which likely amounts to literally all of them. The only difference is, you realize that using the word 'Zionists' would be fine, while using the word 'Israelis' would get you banned. That doesn't change the meaning or intent of your post. You are referring to an entire ethnic group of people as a disease, and you try to disguise your hateful, Hitler-like rambling by pretending that your hatred is aimed towards a political movement, rather than Israelis themselves.[/QUOTE] haha rich coming from you after you have, multiple times, advocated genocide of the Palestinian people as 'there is no other way'
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50632930]I'm pretty sure the video of that Palestinian getting finished off showed a bunch of soldiers calmly standing around him I don't there was any concern that he had explosives on him. If I'm looking at the right video there are numerous soldiers and ambulances right next to the dude, if they did it because he was still a threat they conveniently forgot the evacuate the area.[/QUOTE] Most of the soldiers already considered him neutralised, but the soldier who shot him saw him trying to move his right hand and believed he had a belt of explosives on him, while his motion in his right hand was an attempt to push a button. The main problem regarding this scenario is hidden highly lethal weaponry. In order to truly neutralise a terrorist, we need less-than-lethal means to sedate the terrorist or make him unconscious, then have a bomb squad check his body for explosives. Only then can he truly be considered unarmed. It's a ridiculously grey area, but that's exactly what terrorism is. Its objective is to make you never feel safe under x circumstances so that you'd be more inclined to change those circumstances. [B]Edit:[/B] By the way, what I suggested it not excessive in any way. Security guards - especially in airports, already inspect your bags and body to make sure there's nothing suspicious. That's when you don't yet show intent to harm others. Terrorists that were halfway neutralised already showed intent to harm. And it's not a specific person we're talking about, we're talking about deliberately creating as much collateral damage as they can. Under such circumstances, their actions even when collapsed on the ground cannot be trusted. Sure, the chance for them to have hidden explosives on top of their exposed weaponry is low, but should you risk lives just because the chance is deemed low? I mean, I'm not even talking about taking his life away. Just sedate him so we can truly disarm him.
You are making this issue more complicated than it is. You handcuff a incapacitated suspect if you don't want them to do anything while on the ground. You don't shoot their skull as they lay motionless. You know what you do to confirmed dead suspects in civilized countries? You still handcuff them. Even if their brains are splattered against the pavement.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;50633138]You are making this issue more complicated than it is. You handcuff a incapacitated suspect if you don't want them to do anything while on the ground. You don't shoot their skull as they lay motionless. You know what you do to confirmed dead suspects in civilized countries? You still handcuff them. Even if their brains are splattered against the pavement.[/QUOTE] You're making this issue less complicated than it is. We're talking about 18 year old soldiers who are trained for warfare and not for counter-terrorism. They don't have handcuffs and they only have protocols on when to use their weapons. The problem isn't the specific soldier that shot the terrorist, it's the contrast of the situations IDF puts its soldiers into and their lack of training in handling them. IDF merely shifted their blame on the soldier, while the real problem lies with their protocol.
[QUOTE=mrkaki;50633101]Most of the soldiers already considered him neutralised, but the soldier who shot him saw him trying to move his right hand and believed he had a belt of explosives on him, while his motion in his right hand was an attempt to push a button. The main problem regarding this scenario is hidden highly lethal weaponry. In order to truly neutralise a terrorist, we need less-than-lethal means to sedate the terrorist or make him unconscious, then have a bomb squad check his body for explosives. Only then can he truly be considered unarmed. It's a ridiculously grey area, but that's exactly what terrorism is. Its objective is to make you never feel safe under x circumstances so that you'd be more inclined to change those circumstances. [B]Edit:[/B] By the way, what I suggested it not excessive in any way. Security guards - especially in airports, already inspect your bags and body to make sure there's nothing suspicious. That's when you don't yet show intent to harm others. Terrorists that were halfway neutralised already showed intent to harm. And it's not a specific person we're talking about, we're talking about deliberately creating as much collateral damage as they can. Under such circumstances, their actions even when collapsed on the ground cannot be trusted. Sure, the chance for them to have hidden explosives on top of their exposed weaponry is low, but should you risk lives just because the chance is deemed low? I mean, I'm not even talking about taking his life away. Just sedate him so we can truly disarm him.[/QUOTE] The soldier who shot the Palestinian is [URL="http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Trial-for-Hebron-soldier-who-shot-subdued-terrorist-set-to-begin-453496"]currently standing trial[/URL] in military court.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.