Gaza Strip

[LoneWolf16]

And then now at the end I need a real zinger. How about I call you racist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's hardly constructive.

[Commissar]

I didn't mention how Isreal initially acquired the Gaza Strip, but the reason Iseal is able to colonize it now is due to the fact Palistine has largely been abandoning the area.  They want it back now that homes have been built, and new irrigation has been put in.

 

How many times has Isreal been attacked?  How often have measures been put before the UAE to unite all Arab nations to declare war on Isreal at once?

 

Israel has started - started, I said, not been involved in, but started - more wars in that region than any other nation.

 

I know people living in the area.  Many of the Palestinians abandoned their homes a long time ago.  You seem to have really old info.

 

I do? Look it up, if you like. Palestine is one of the most densely populated areas on earth, in the top ten if I recall correctly, and that population is 99% Palestinian, not Jewish.

 

As far as who owns the land, both Isreal and Palestine have historical claims to the land.  That gives them both the same arguement and rights.  The UN said to split the land.  Palestine refuses to abide by the UN's decision to split the land, and yet Isreal does.

 

Palestine practices terrorism and murders innocent civilians.  They have often bombed and targetted young children.  The UN supposedly has a policy of not dealing with terrorists, except they do.  From a pure legal perspective, Isreal has a right to that land.

 

That's not really a pure legal perspective. That's a pure Israeli perspective - and yet not so much, anymore.

 

Have you ever spoken to a settler who actually lives in the area?  I think your assumptions are a bit off.  Try to talking to them.

 

Why? Have you talked to any Palestinians? Once again, one of the world's ten most densely populated areas, with one of the world's highest unemployment rates. The settlers have their perspective, sure - though they're considered extreme right-wing even in Israel - but so do the Palestinians. Why is their perspective any less worthwhile?

 

There is ZERO DEFENSE for murdering innocent civilians.  Let me repeat that.  There is ZERO DEFENSE for murdering innocent civilians.

 

We operate in society on various social contracts.  We have an international govering body (which may be a complete mockery) which we can turn to.  If Palestine didn't like the UN's decision on forming Isreal, then they should deal with the UN.

 

Palestinian clerics have gone on record saying they wish to see every last Isreali man and woman dead.  On 9/11 we saw images of Palestinian's dancing in the streets saying "God loves us because he kills the Americans."

 

In this situation the outside world is using diplomacy, patience and politics to deal with a group of people that seemlingly are fanatics.  Logic doesn't work with fanatics.  Palestine doesn't want to share.  They don't want to behave.

 

People were holding up signs of "Jerusalem Next" during the forcible eviction of Gaza Strip residents.

 

Palestine's beef is that when Isreal was initially formed that they refused to abide by the agreement and were forced out of their homes.  So two wrongs make a right?

 

As it stands, the UN and the world say Isreal and Palestine must share land.

 

As it stands, Palestine has been using terrorism for years and the world doesn't care.

 

As it stands, Isreal is forced into one concession after another.

 

And you defend the position of terrorism.  Tsk, tsk.

 

First of all, Palestine wasn't represented in the UN when Israel was formed, but nevertheless they complained, and complained loudly, as did every single other Arab state in the region.

 

As far as your "no civilian murder" bit, Israel has time and again targeted residential areas where suspected Palestinian terrorists reside. There has been a hell of a lot of collateral damage in Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets; Israel's killed it's fair share of civilians who have had nothing to do with attacks, but you don't condemn them.

 

What are you talking about, eminent domain?

 

That is where your home is sold, you are given the money and given time to move.  Soldiers going door to door and dragging people away kicking and screaming is another thing.  Those people have nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've seen plenty of people dragged kicking and screaming from their homes in eminent domain cases right here at home. And the settlers are going to be compensated, believe me.

[Laozi]

And then now at the end I need a real zinger. How about I call you racist?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's hardly constructive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I wasn't really calling him racist, I just don't really like it too much when people are trying to make an issue with many more then two sides seem black and white

 

The whole tsk tsk thing was pretty juvenile, and seemed to be escalating

[Commissar]

Let me be clear then on my opinion.  The decision of the UN was contraversial.  I'm not sure there was a right answer.  After WW2 the Isreali people had no home.  Anywhere you stuck them, the home country could be upset that they are forced to make room.

 

Again, there is possibly no right answer there.  Isreal seemed the natural place, as that is their historic homeland.  The place isn't overpopulated.

 

The Isreali people seem willing to share and abide by the UN's wishes.  I'm sure they have religious fundamentalists who aren't too happy sharing Jerusalem with Christians and Muslims, but they do it.

 

The Palestinians refuse to share.  They act as a petulant child and yet we treat them as an adult and expect them to react like an adult.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It isn't overpopulated? Seriously, check out a world factbook. Any encyclopaedia article.

[SteveThaiBinh]

OK, lots of interesting things going on here.

Palestine completely abandoned the Gaza Strip and declared the area uninhabitable.

That I've never heard before. What's your source for this information? Who made this declaration, given that a state of Palestine didn't exist? I have to say, my initial feeling is that this sounds like Israeli propaganda - Israeli 'historians' have long been saying that when Jewish settlers arrived, both in Israel proper and in the occupied territories, they found the land abandoned. Palestinians claim that some of them were forced to leave their homes at the point of a gun, whereas others fled in fear before the Israelis arrived. If we're accepting that as legal abandonment then we're allowing a very dangerous precedent.

The Isreali people come in, irrigate, build and make the place a new settlement to live, despite constant terrorism there.

Israelis, particularly settlers, have been criticised on environmental grounds for making drastic changes to their environment without the water resources to maintain them. I think they're trying to create conditions of greenery that aren't appropriate to their local context. They're also condemned for having sprinklers on their lawns while many Palestinians do not have the WHO recommended daily allowance of water.

Terrorists blow people up, murder children, and the world watches for years.  In any other country in the world, we say you never buckle into the demands of terrorism.  But for years and years we've all said we want peace in the middle east.  To that extent the leaders of the civilized world keep telling Isreal to make concessions, and Palestine will stop supporting terrorism.

For years we in Britain said we would never buckle to the demands of the IRA, and it got us nowhere. When we agreed to meet with Sinn Fein and to address, not the direct demands of the terrorists, but the concerns of the community that they represented, progress was possible. This is because the IRA, like Hamas but unlike al-Qaeda, have a specific set of objectives, many of which (excluding the destruction of Israel in Hamas' case) are legitimate.

Isreal has been making concessions for years, and they are just caving into terrorism.

What concessions? Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and denied the Palestinian people freedom and statehood.

Yet, again Isreal is forced to make another concession.  They have to give up the Gaza Strip and hand it to Palestine.  To do this, the military is going door to door, busting down doors and forcibly removing people from their homes.  They lose their home, everything they own and are ripped away.

 

How is this in any way cool or justifiable?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Gaza Strip isn't Israel's and was never Israel's. It was taken illegally in a war. A temporary occupation on grounds of security was indeed justified - Israel was not the aggressor in the war which caused the occupation, the Arab States were. But the establishment of settlements was totally unjustified - it was a response to the Israeli right who dreamed of a Greater Israel, and to me, the idea of a Greater Israel is as repugnant as the ideas of those Palestinians who deny the right of Israel to exist at all. To construct settlements in the Occupied Territories is no different than if the US and UK were to start constructing settlements in Iraq now, annexing territory for themselves and ignoring or undermining the Iraqi government.

 

I feel tremendous sympathy for the people in those settlements - especially the younger ones who were born there and are leaving the only homes they ever knew. It is a tragedy for them, and the Israeli government holds the lion's share of the blame for allowing, and encouraging, them to settle on territory which was not rightfully Israel's.

 

Potentially, this is very good news. The settlers will be shaken, but will return to Israel and be able to find homes and rebuild their lives. The Israeli Army will withdraw from the Gaza Strip and stop shooting and getting shot at. The Palestinian Authority will be free in the Gaza Strip to grow and become stronger as a potential state - and this is in everyone's interests, because only a strong Palestinian Authority can ever succeed in negotiating a real ceasefire with Hamas and the other terrorists. One of the most bizarre and disgraceful tendencies we've seen in recent Israeli policy has been to undermine the Palestinian Authority and at the same time demand that it solve the terrorist problem.

 

Overall, this is good news for the Middle East, though it needs careful watching.

[EnderAndrew]

One, the U.N., they're not the greatest thing ever.

That doesn't justify terrorism. You make really weak excuses.

 

I asked you what the correct decision would have been after WW2. You provide none.

Three, the Jewish people or atleast their military has killed alot of people, at their home, some while eating, some because they threw rocks.

Sources?

Four, During Sept. 11 why didn't the terrorist attack, you know places like shopping malls, and baseball stadiums? Why did they choose the Penagon, and the WTC? Were they just trying to kill as many americans as possible? Probaly not, they where pretty stategic places to hit, much like a military might do. Much like our military has done, and there has been some collateral damage in their actions too. So does the family and country of the people who were killed at a wedding accidently by the U.S. have the right to invade the U.S., kill everyone whos in the military or take them prisoner and hold them for as long as they want, and then invade canada, basically because they're white too?

Are you defending the 9/11 terrorists? It sure sounds like you are.

 

The WTC is a commercial building staffed by civilians. They murdered civilians and you equate that to policy of the US?

 

Sure, we go out of the way to bomb targets that have zero military relevance and murder thousands of civilians. Find one instance of it.

 

You've flat out made false statements. I can't call you a liar, but we both know the reality of the situation.

And then now at the end I need a real zinger. How about I call you racist

That doesn't make it true, but you seem quick to discount murder and rush to it's defense. I wonder why that would be? What's your motivation here?

[EnderAndrew]

I wasn't really calling him racist, I just don't really like it too much when people are trying to make an issue with many more then two sides seem black and white

 

The whole tsk tsk thing was pretty juvenile, and seemed to be escalating

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Murdering civilians is black and white.

 

I love how you ignore than issue.

 

Please name one civilized nation where it isn't illegal and give me one good reason why we can ignore the murder of innocent civilians.

[LoneWolf16]

The World Trade Center was an icon...it wasn't really about the people working inside of it.

[Commissar]

OK, lots of interesting things going on here.

Palestine completely abandoned the Gaza Strip and declared the area uninhabitable.

That I've never heard before.

Me neither.

 

For years we in Britain said we would never buckle to the demands of the IRA, and it got us nowhere.  When we agreed to meet with Sinn Fein and to address, not the direct demands of the terrorists, but the concerns of the community that they represented, progress was possible.  This is because the IRA, like Hamas but unlike al-Qaeda, have a specific set of objectives, many of which (excluding the destruction of Israel in Hamas' case) are legitimate.

Exactly. I think the only terrorist situation which has even been solved by force alone, without negotiation, is possibly the Badder-Meinhof Gang in Germany. That's it, as far as I know. You can't beat terrorists by shooting them. Just doesn't work. Negotiation and diplomacy are essential.

 

The Gaza Strip isn't Israel's and was never Israel's.  It was taken illegally in a war. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Precisely.

[EnderAndrew]

Your arguement is that the Gaza Strip was taken from Egypt, so we should get it to terrorists?

 

How does that make any sense?

[Child of Flame]

One, the U.N., they're not the greatest thing ever.

That doesn't justify terrorism. You make really weak excuses.

 

I asked you what the correct decision would have been after WW2. You provide none.

Three, the Jewish people or atleast their military has killed alot of people, at their home, some while eating, some because they threw rocks.

Sources?

Four, During Sept. 11 why didn't the terrorist attack, you know places like shopping malls, and baseball stadiums? Why did they choose the Penagon, and the WTC? Were they just trying to kill as many americans as possible? Probaly not, they where pretty stategic places to hit, much like a military might do. Much like our military has done, and there has been some collateral damage in their actions too. So does the family and country of the people who were killed at a wedding accidently by the U.S. have the right to invade the U.S., kill everyone whos in the military or take them prisoner and hold them for as long as they want, and then invade canada, basically because they're white too?

Are you defending the 9/11 terrorists? It sure sounds like you are.

 

The WTC is a commercial building staffed by civilians. They murdered civilians and you equate that to policy of the US?

 

Sure, we go out of the way to bomb targets that have zero military relevance and murder thousands of civilians. Find one instance of it.

 

You've flat out made false statements. I can't call you a liar, but we both know the reality of the situation.

And then now at the end I need a real zinger. How about I call you racist

That doesn't make it true, but you seem quick to discount murder and rush to it's defense. I wonder why that would be? What's your motivation here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ender, with that military bit you left yourself totally wide open.

 

Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

 

Keep in mind I am pretty much on your side here, this situation is messed.

 

 

Edit: Also, Lone Wolf's point is teh win.

 

WTC wasn't not about the civvies. It was about instilling fear and crippling economy.

 

I would consider Terrarism a method of war if only because 'civilized' war isn't feasible on the kind of shoe string budget Terrarist organizations operate on.

 

It's still wrong to kill civvies, but when you're fighting a war from a third world country, against troops from a 500lb Gorilla or a nation like the US, there's not many other feasible methods of waging war other than terrarism.

[LoneWolf16]

One, the U.N., they're not the greatest thing ever.

That doesn't justify terrorism. You make really weak excuses.

 

I asked you what the correct decision would have been after WW2. You provide none.

Three, the Jewish people or atleast their military has killed alot of people, at their home, some while eating, some because they threw rocks.

Sources?

Four, During Sept. 11 why didn't the terrorist attack, you know places like shopping malls, and baseball stadiums? Why did they choose the Penagon, and the WTC? Were they just trying to kill as many americans as possible? Probaly not, they where pretty stategic places to hit, much like a military might do. Much like our military has done, and there has been some collateral damage in their actions too. So does the family and country of the people who were killed at a wedding accidently by the U.S. have the right to invade the U.S., kill everyone whos in the military or take them prisoner and hold them for as long as they want, and then invade canada, basically because they're white too?

Are you defending the 9/11 terrorists? It sure sounds like you are.

 

The WTC is a commercial building staffed by civilians. They murdered civilians and you equate that to policy of the US?

 

Sure, we go out of the way to bomb targets that have zero military relevance and murder thousands of civilians. Find one instance of it.

 

You've flat out made false statements. I can't call you a liar, but we both know the reality of the situation.

And then now at the end I need a real zinger. How about I call you racist

That doesn't make it true, but you seem quick to discount murder and rush to it's defense. I wonder why that would be? What's your motivation here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ender, with that military bit you left yourself totally wide open.

 

Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

 

Keep in mind I am pretty much on your side here, this situation is messed.

 

 

Edit: Also, Lone Wolf's point is teh win.

 

WTC wasn't not about the civvies. It was about instilling fear and crippling economy.

 

I would consider Terrarism a method of war if only because 'civilized' war isn't feasible on the kind of shoe string budget Terrarist organizations operate on.

 

It's still wrong to kill civvies, but when you're fighting a war from a third world country, against troops from a 500lb Gorilla or a nation like the US, there's not many other feasible methods of waging war other than terrarism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly.

 

Edit: That's not to say that terrorism is acceptable, or good...just strategically sound.

[Child of Flame]

I invested heavily in insight during character creation.

 

Unfortunately this scares off all females not wanting to complain to you about the current realationship they're in, before telling you what a nice guy you are, and how they wish they could find someone like you.

[Lucius]

One, the U.N., they're not the greatest thing ever.

That doesn't justify terrorism. You make really weak excuses.

 

I asked you what the correct decision would have been after WW2. You provide none.

Three, the Jewish people or atleast their military has killed alot of people, at their home, some while eating, some because they threw rocks.

Sources?

Four, During Sept. 11 why didn't the terrorist attack, you know places like shopping malls, and baseball stadiums? Why did they choose the Penagon, and the WTC? Were they just trying to kill as many americans as possible? Probaly not, they where pretty stategic places to hit, much like a military might do. Much like our military has done, and there has been some collateral damage in their actions too. So does the family and country of the people who were killed at a wedding accidently by the U.S. have the right to invade the U.S., kill everyone whos in the military or take them prisoner and hold them for as long as they want, and then invade canada, basically because they're white too?

Are you defending the 9/11 terrorists? It sure sounds like you are.

 

The WTC is a commercial building staffed by civilians. They murdered civilians and you equate that to policy of the US?

 

Sure, we go out of the way to bomb targets that have zero military relevance and murder thousands of civilians. Find one instance of it.

 

You've flat out made false statements. I can't call you a liar, but we both know the reality of the situation.

And then now at the end I need a real zinger. How about I call you racist

That doesn't make it true, but you seem quick to discount murder and rush to it's defense. I wonder why that would be? What's your motivation here?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ender, with that military bit you left yourself totally wide open.

 

Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

 

Keep in mind I am pretty much on your side here, this situation is messed.

 

 

Edit: Also, Lone Wolf's point is teh win.

 

WTC wasn't not about the civvies. It was about instilling fear and crippling economy.

 

I would consider Terrarism a method of war if only because 'civilized' war isn't feasible on the kind of shoe string budget Terrarist organizations operate on.

 

It's still wrong to kill civvies, but when you're fighting a war from a third world country, against troops from a 500lb Gorilla or a nation like the US, there's not many other feasible methods of waging war other than terrarism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point.

[EnderAndrew]

From the same Wikipedia - "At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance"

 

People also cite Japan's declaration that despite having already lost the war, that they would fight to the last man. Given their kamikaze tactics demonstrated in the war, we had reason to believe that to be the case.

 

One could argue the deaths of 120,000 people prevented the deaths of millions.

 

And you all seem to miss the big point.

 

Technology is not the issue. Money is not the issue. Civilian vs government target is the issue.

 

3rd world countries could practice tactics beneficial to their position and one could argue the justification of their assault. However, murdering innocent civilians is never acceptable.

 

Palestine could target military only targets with suicide bombers, but they attack malls, daycares, buses, public squares, etc.

 

Murdering civilians is not acceptable.

[jaguars4ever]

For those who argue that the Jewish people have equitable claim to their land (which absolves any insinuation trespassing intentions), due to the mandate provided by the UN upon formation of the nation of Isreal in 1948, remember one thing:

 

The territory gains from the 1967 war were not UN sanctioned Israeli land - the Sinai and Gaza Strip were indeed captured from Egypt, East Jerusalem as was the West Bank from Jordan and Golan Heights from Syria.

 

From the Muslims point of view to go to war justifiable, God's will in fact.

 

From the perspective of the West, such warmongering was unacceptable.

 

However the fact remains that Israel retained most of the captured gains due to their instrinsic strategic advantages.

 

This is what constitutes a sizable portion of the reasoning behind the proposed concept of Israeli "occupancy".

[EnderAndrew]

The territory gains from the 1967 war were not UN sanctioned Israeli land - the Sinai and Gaza Strip were indeed captured from Egypt, East Jerusalem as was the West Bank from Jordan and Golan Heights from Syria. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That doesn't mean that Isreal should give the land to Palestine.

 

If you feel Isreal doesn't have a right to that land, then perhaps it should go to Egypt. It should be noted that Egypt hasn't made any claim to that land since 1967.

[LoneWolf16]

From the same Wikipedia - "At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance"

 

People also cite Japan's declaration that despite having already lost the war, that they would fight to the last man.  Given their kamikaze tactics demonstrated in the war, we had reason to believe that to be the case.

 

One could argue the deaths of 120,000 people prevented the deaths of millions.

 

And you all seem to miss the big point.

 

Technology is not the issue.  Money is not the issue.  Civilian vs government target is the issue.

 

3rd world countries could practice tactics beneficial to their position and one could argue the justification of their assault.  However, murdering innocent civilians is never acceptable.

 

Palestine could target military only targets with suicide bombers, but they attack malls, daycares, buses, public squares, etc.

 

Murdering civilians is not acceptable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering that Japan's dignitaries, when speaking to their western counterparts, had alluded to a peaceful surrender a few weeks prior to the bombings...I'd say it'd be a tough argument. (I'm sorry I can't provide a source, but do me the favor of not questioning my integrity.)

 

And I don't recall anybody here stating that the killing of innocent civilians was in any way justified.

[Commissar]

From the same Wikipedia - "At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance"

 

People also cite Japan's declaration that despite having already lost the war, that they would fight to the last man.  Given their kamikaze tactics demonstrated in the war, we had reason to believe that to be the case.

 

One could argue the deaths of 120,000 people prevented the deaths of millions.

 

And you all seem to miss the big point.

 

Technology is not the issue.  Money is not the issue.  Civilian vs government target is the issue.

 

3rd world countries could practice tactics beneficial to their position and one could argue the justification of their assault.  However, murdering innocent civilians is never acceptable.

 

Palestine could target military only targets with suicide bombers, but they attack malls, daycares, buses, public squares, etc.

 

Murdering civilians is not acceptable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're just going off the deep end now, man.

 

World War II as a whole is the perfect example of governments murdering each other's civilians.

 

Hiroshima had industrial and military significance? So what. It wasn't soldiers working in the factories.

 

Dresden had significant industrial significance, too, but we firebombed it to the ground.

 

We bombed numerous cities in every theater of war, killing thousands upon thousands of civilians - with a military aim. The twin goals of the Allied bombing campaigns were to destroy as much of the industrial/defensive capabilities of the enemy as possible, and to sap the enemy civilians' will to continue supporting the war.

 

End of story.

[jaguars4ever]

The territory gains from the 1967 war were not UN sanctioned Israeli land - the Sinai and Gaza Strip were indeed captured from Egypt, East Jerusalem as was the West Bank from Jordan and Golan Heights from Syria. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That doesn't mean that Isreal should give the land to Palestine.

 

If you feel Isreal doesn't have a right to that land, then perhaps it should go to Egypt. It should be noted that Egypt hasn't made any claim to that land since 1967.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What I believe is that given Israel was attacked (and did not initiate or provoke the war), they should be allowed to retain their military gains provided any existing international bodies of representation decide otherwise.

[Child of Flame]

From the same Wikipedia - "At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Could it not be said that the WTC was a target of considerable economic significance, and the Pentagon was a target of considerable military and government significance?

 

 

3rd world countries could practice tactics beneficial to their position and one could argue the justification of their assault.  However, murdering innocent civilians is never acceptable.

 

Palestine could target military only targets with suicide bombers, but they attack malls, daycares, buses, public squares, etc.

 

Murdering civilians is not acceptable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Not acceptable, or not palatable to your civilized senses?

 

As few and as poorly funded of them as there are, compared to a relatively endless flow of troops both US and Israeli, to throw themselves at military targets would not only likely get them killed before they'd even detonated, but also would not instill the same amount of fear that throwing themselves at civvies does.

 

I don't like that they're killing civvies, but I can't help but admire how effective terrarist methods are, similar to how you can't help but admire how well many evil things work. This does not make them right, this does not mean I think what they are doing is just, but I recognize that terrarist methods are the most effective way to get what they want done done.

 

Aside from passive protest, which would get forces such as the US on their side if they're sufficiently persecuted, but most don't have the stomach for that, including most Christians.

 

 

 

I've got to do the last of my packing now so I'm sad to say I've got to leave the debate. Assuming it hasn't been locked when I get back in nine days (yeah, sure) I'll pick up where I left off.

[Commissar]

Furthermore, what do you want the Palestinians to hit? Soldiers? That's not nearly as effective as killing civilians.

 

Just look at Iraq. Tell me what the American public gets more worked up about: is it when a civilian contractor or journalist gets captured and killed, all in technicolor, or is it when we get the usual report that three Marines were killed in a carbombing incident outside of Baghdad? The populace accepts military loss of life far more readily than civilian loss of life. If you're playing to win, you're playing to win.

[Laozi]

What I believe is that given Israel was attacked (and did not initiate or provoke the war), they should be allowed to retain their military gains provided any existing interenational bodies of representation decide otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But by those "allowances" wouldn't Palestine's actions just be another means to the same "gains"? Its all condoning death for land and resources

[LoneWolf16]

Brutally efficient.

 

Edit: Terrorist tactics, I mean.

[Musopticon?]

See ya, Eru.