EnderAndrew

Although it was you that commented that murder of innocents is never acceptable, yet accept the mass slaughter bombings because it "may have saved lives." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Score one for Alan. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bombing a military target where "civilians" work is different from bombing an elementary school. And how does bombing an elementary school save lives? Your inability to see the difference proves your ignorance in this manner.

I'll prove you wrong with your own words. Let us continue. Statement #1 Statement #2 I won't call you a liar, but you made two contradicting statements. They can't both possibly be true. So pick which one is true, and let me know which statement you made isn't true. You justify their methods and yet say no one is justifying their methods. I have also quoted others justifying their methods, so I'm going with statement 1 being wrong.

No, you use UNSCR as the definition of legal and illegal. You recognize the UNSCR against Israel, but don't recognize UNSCR recognizing the war in Iraq as being legal. By claiming it doesn't exist, you lie. Refusing to accept your own source is hyprocritical. And I called the two specific actions either lies or hypocritical. I did not label you specifically a liar or a hypocrite. I'd wage we've all lied or acted in hypocritical fashion in some point in our lives. I have not said that you lie more than another for instance, but merely pointed out one instance where you are lying.

Again, Bush said he believed he already had UN approval on two grounds. 1 - The cease-fire was based on Iraq's total duplicity, which the UN said didn't exist. Thusly, we had an initial authorization from the UN to go into Iraq, and the cease-fire was made null and void. 2 - Right after a 9/11, the UNSC passed another UNSCR saying comply immediately or else, and then found they weren't complying. Two years later, we figured the "or else" clause kicked in. The UN did authorize the war officially and made it all legal after the fact. The opinion of one individual does not change the fact the UN did officially sanction the war.

Doesn't anyone have a response for this: If Palestinians are justified in murdering innocent civilians (which they aren't) because of a land grab 50 years ago, then Jews should be justified in killing everyone of Roman descent, or Egyptian descent for the times they were forcibly removed from their homeland. Let's throw Germany in there for good measure. People's lack of logical arguements astound me. I think I'll just keep repeating it until someone does come up with a response to it.

Simply because CNN or the BBC doesn't report it means it didn't happen? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, but I can't find a single objective outlet that said it did, but I can find articles that contradict his and say that gunfire was heard in the area of the border. That doesn't mean the bullet came from an Israeli solder or that a child was intentionally targetted. I take it most of you haven't fired high-powered rifles or seen bullets richochet? I was pulling "butts" undernearth a rifle range when I saw a bullet hit the post of a target, bonce off a rock, hit some dirt and then drill through a kevlar helmet. The website he linked to reports only one side of the news. Without any objective source, and with other reports contradicting it, I say the story is suspect.

UNSCR said the cease-fire in Iraq was contingent on Iraq's complete duplicity in the manner. Then some 75 seperate UNSCRs said Iraq was not complying. UN law said we had a right to go in, and the UN officially said we had a right to go in. I asked what nations said it was illegal. I know of 3, and all had financial ties to Iraq and weren't objective on the issue. I can name 30 nations that supported the war, and the UN recognized it as legal. Calling it illegal is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. A blatant misrepresentation of the facts is a lie.

Funny. The BBC can't find anything about a school in Rafah. CNN doesn't have a story. In fact, no major news network does. But searching for other versions of the stories reports that no one saw an Israeli solider shoot at the school. Gunfire was heard near the border, and the girl got shot. The school is also being run 800 meters from a border where there is active conflict on both sides. So while it was never actually confirmed that the bullet came from an Israeli soldier, and no reputable news agency ran the story, you quote a source that paints Palestine completely as a victim in every one of their stories. I couldn't find a single article on that website about terrorist attacks blowing up Jewish schools. Some source.

But we're arguing legal and illegal. We're arguing right and wrong. In both cases intent is crucial. So intent doesn't matter. I asked initially why it is acceptable for people to be forced out of their homes to appease terrorists. It's nice to know that you have no qualms with that.

You've never heard of these concessions but you quote one? The UN wants Israel to conceed to terrorism. And funny how you say the US illegally invaded Iraq when they did so with the authorization of the UN, and backed by 30 countries, yet you insist most of the world said it was illegal? Who constitutes most of the world? France, Germany and Russia? I can list over 30 countries that added the war in Iraq. Futhermore, you say we should enforce UNSCR on Israel, but apparently we shouldn't against Iraq. That's being awful hypocritcal of you, isn't it?

How many stories are you leaving out where children were intentionally targetted by Palestinians? Name one instance where Israel intentionally targets children? Terrorists bring violence to civilians and then blame others when a governing body incurs collateral damage. If terrorists attacked the government directly, say on a less public battlefield, collateral damage would be decreased.

How are they illegally occupying? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=illegal The governing body of Palestine said legally Palestine had to share and they refused. The world governing body said Palestine had to share and they refused. The only one doing anything illegal is Palestine. And I guess murder would be a legal response?

The sword bounced back into him as he was leaning forward. He impaled himself.

Maybe these are new Russian developers without experience of big budgets behind them?

If Palestinians are justified in murdering innocent civilians (which they aren't) because of a land grab 50 years ago, then Jews should be justified in killing everyone of Roman descent, or Egyptian descent for the times they were forcibly removed from their homeland. Let's throw Germany in there for good measure. People's lack of logical arguements astound me.

Except not all Palestinians were removed from homes. A small portion were, a very small portion. And they killed Jews before they were removed from homes. And that incident happened 50 years ago. So maybe Lonewolf's relatives did something bad to my relatives 50 years ago, and I consider that justification to murder his family, while he is forced to give up his home to me, and like it.

How about this. You move into my neighborhood. I suggest that I don't want any people named LoneWolf in my neighborhood, so I murder your family. Then I propose that there would be peace if you gave me your home, and all of your belongings. Then the police come in and force you to conceed, and yet I attempt to kill you and your remaining relatives anyway. And then you watch the world defend me. How would you feel? Imagine facing that prejudice your whole life, to the extent that you know countless people would simply kill you for being who you are, and being told to play nice with those who seek your death.

I didn't say it was right. I said it was perhaps the reason it happened. But people killed Jews for being Jews in that area as well, and Palestine did refuse to cooperate. The UN and UK made their decisions, and those decisions had to be upheld. I'd say well over 90% of the Europeans I've spoken to are very much Pro-Palestine and don't care for Israel in the least. I've also been told that anti-semitism is very common in Europe.

Then why give up the Gaza Strip is Palestine can't crack down on terrorism? They've asked for countless concessions over the years and never held up their end of the bargain anyway. And I though Bush's policy was that if your harbor and support terrorism, that we will hold you accountable. Why does this not apply to Palestine? The only person I've seen mention peace was Yassar Arafat, and all the while he funded terrorism. Lies don't count. The Gaza Strip was taken by force, and they said Jerusalem next. The tactics to get the Gaza Strip were terrorism, and the Israeli military removing Israeli people by force. Why wouldn't I assume when they say Jersualem next they are implying they want the exact same thing to happen to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the finest example of how the Jews have demonstated peace, diplomacy and patience. I can't believe anyone would suggest the Jews give up their crown jewel to appease terrorists. Next, the US should move out of New York because it MIGHT make terrorists happy. You said truth is the first casualty. I said "by this logic". And the extension of this logic says the Israel was victim to the first casualties.

Maybe that hostility of throwing Palestinians out of their homes was a reaction to: A - Jews being slaughtered in that area already. B - Palestine openly saying they would refuse to comply with England or the UN. People forget that England technically had sovereign control over the area at the time.

The government gives money to and supports terrorism. They have made claims that if Israel makes concessions that they will crack down on terrorism, insinuating that they can control how much terrorism occurs. They have not done as such. Futhermore, despite the media often portraying the Israeli people being in the wrong, I never never once heard a single sentiment out of Palestine seeking peace. All too often I hear people vocally speak out in Palestine saying they wish to see all Jews dead. On the 17th, and the Gaza Strip was being cleared out, Palestinians were carrying signs that said "Jerusalem Next". On 9/11, children danced in the street welcoming the death of innocent Americans. Children do not celebrate death unless they are raised in a society that revels the death of others. The "civilian" casualties on the Palestinian side have been suspected terrorists. If you can't attack terrorists because they don't wear military uniforms, then what response do you have to terrorism? Name one time Israel bombed a school. I can name countless times Palestine bombed a school. With this logic, Israel is clearly the victim. They were attacked before Israel was a nation. Jews were slaughtered in the lands that are now Israel, and outside as well. People will argue that Israel has no right to the Gaza Strip, yet in that conflict Israel was attacked by Egypt first and defended themself. I believe your quote is dead on.

Yet Muslims argue they have more of a historical claim to the land than Palestine. Futhermore, arguing who had a claim to the land even 50 years ago is a matter of historical claim. Currently the world government recognizes Israel as a nation, and recognizes the Israeli people having a right to live there, yet people would defend terrorism and murdering civilians as being justified due to historical claims to land. I've asked several times what the correct solution is to post-WW2. No one has presented a better one. I've outright asked you and you keep dodging the issue. How does Palestine own the land that you say belongs to Egypt? Russia took over Eastern Europe in the same time period saying that when twenty million people died, they had a right to form a buffer zone to defend themselves against those that fought against them. People said okay. But if Israel is attacked by invaders, and the invaders lose ground in the conflict one could certainly argue that Israel is entitled to the spoils of a war they didn't even start.

That's the dictionary's definition. And if the dictionary (which I linked) is no longer allowed to define words in our language, then civilized debate ends completely.

ESPN is a business. The NHL decided to make a mockery of themselves, but even before the strike, the NHL got horrid ratings. Now they will get even worse ratings. I like hockey, I do. But ESPN does not cover every sport in the world. They don't have a major contract for Lacrosse, which is actually the national sport of Canada, not hockey. They only cover the most popular sports.

That is not what I said. Freedom fighters target oppressive GOVERNMENTS. Terrorists target innocent CIVILIANS. Apparently you don't see that distinction. Apparently you've never seen when CNN shows Al Jazeera TV, or read the news reports to the terrorist tapes that come out.