[Gank]

Originally posted by Splinter
show us a link or picture... were they covering the familky because maybe they had weapons or would strangle them or stab them gosh. to point you gun at somone hwo might kill you is horrible

Footage was shown on skynews, thats a tv station, if you want the footage contact them. And a man and a woman with their kids arent going to attack a dozen heavily armed soldiers.

Originally posted by Splinter
hmm crouched down were they hiding in the house? waiting for some militants to pass by were they maybe searching the house for weapons caches or smuggling tunnels unless you can verify these questions they could have been doing any number of thigns in that house including what you listed and you need to find out before stating it as fact.

The fact that they had a family held at gunpoint in a hostile area indicates they were using them as human shields.

Originally posted by Splinter
anyone seen movie Black Hawk Down... that guy was separated from his unit so cause he had a bunch of guys on his tail he ran into a house with a mother and her children and waitied for the guys to pass by... was he wrong to hide in there or should he have just ran down the street and let them shoot him... everything is relative...

Actually it was a group of soldiers who kept them there all night in the book, you shouldnt rely on hollywood for your knowlege of these events

Originally posted by Sandwich
Don't even try to start claiming that suicide bombers are not murderers, dude. You'll just sound ridiculous.

I never did, I said I wasnt going to dress up my language to suit you. And you tell me to stop putting words in your mouth?

Originally posted by karajorma
You really do have to wonder why don't you. It's not like years of bombing cafes and buses have got them any closer to their goal.

 I suppose considering that the last peace process was stopped by the assassination of an Israeli leader maybe they're scared that the next one might bring it back

Assassinated by an Israeli settler it should be pointed out. And considering the restrictions in place on the movement of palestinians it shouldnt be that much of a surprise Sharons still around. one of the main reasons they hit things like buses and nightcluubs is securitys too tight anywhere of value.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Neither were "The Palestinians" as the world knows them today.

Palestine existed in 1948. It was formed after ww1 when the british carved up the Ottoman empire. But as Rictor pointed out, regardless of what you call them they are the people who lived in that area for centuries. In 1948 jews owned 7% of the land they conquered in 1949.

[an0n]

I thought Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire, like Wales is a part of the United Kingdom, then Britain chopped it off into a seperate country again?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Rictor
Killing someone makes you a murderer. Strictly speaking, this is true. But you can be a murderer and still be guiltless. If someone is directly trying to kill you, and he has no right to do so, then its murder in self defence. But technically, its is still murder.

I should also mention that rarely, rarely can someone claim to be totally guiltless in a murder. Because very rarely are all the conditions met to consider something and act of pure self defense.

Do I really have to look up the two on Dictionary.com and post it here?

Originally posted by Gank
The fact that they had a family held at gunpoint in a hostile area indicates they were using them as human shields.

Uhm, no. Iit doesn't. I've held people at gunpoint before. They were most definitely not any sort of human shield.

Originally posted by Gank
I never did, I said I wasnt going to dress up my language to suit you. And you tell me to stop putting words in your mouth?

I apologize on the "putting words in your mouth" issue - touche. However, you are aware that "dying for their cause" implies that the people losing their lives are being killed by others due to firmly-held beliefs (or whichever reason), and not dying by commiting a combination suicide/homicide, correct?

[an0n]

Let's just say that killing someone makes you a killer. Right?

[Rictor]

True, you could call them homocide-bombers if you like, as FOX does, but it just doesn't imply the same level of fanaticism as "suicide-bomber", which is the reason why most people fear the crazed Muslim hordes etc etc.

anon: some sources for those numbers please? What you're asking is for us to reconsider our understanding of a pretty important historical event, so that is of course going to require a fair bit of proof.

[an0n]

Google for "auschwitz figures soviet archives".

Should knock up a plethora of good sources.

[an0n]

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-GermanRosters&HolocaustNumbers-Janet.htm

For the lazy.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Uhm, no. Iit doesn't. I've held people at gunpoint before. They were most definitely not any sort of human shield.

Lets put this in perspective for you, if when you invaded Jenin you had occupied a house of a family with four young kids and held them there at gunpoint would you not be using them as huuman shields? theres no logical reason for keeping them there, they clearly dont pose a threat and obviouusly wanted to get the **** away as fast as they could.

Originally posted by Sandwich
I apologize on the "putting words in your mouth" issue - touche. However, you are aware that "dying for their cause" implies that the people losing their lives are being killed by others due to firmly-held beliefs (or whichever reason), and not dying by commiting a combination suicide/homicide, correct?

no dying for their cause means they died trying to further their aims. If theres any percieved nobleness about it its in your mind, not mine. Martyred would be the proper word for the first meaning you've listed.

[Gank]

We must separate the Jews into two categories, the Zionists and the partisans of assimilation. The Zionists profess a strictly racial concept and, through emigration to Palestine, they help to build their own Jewish State...our good wishes and our official goodwill go with them.

Reinhardt Heydrich

Zionists actively collaborated with the Nazis while ordinary jews were murdered
http://www.aalulbayt.org/html/eng2/books/miscelleneous/the-founding-myths-of-israeli-politics/part3.htm

[vyper]

To avoid any more threads starting lets cover todays develoments here: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=T3PFJK2NVVG1QCRBAEZSFEY?type=worldNews&storyID=514184§ion=news

Isn't that lovely? Israeli forces fire on unarmed protesters and (according to bbc tv neews) blow off a child's leg and blow of another's arm. You'd think the Jews would know better than to persecute an entire race of people...

[Splinter]

Originally posted by vyper
To avoid any more threads starting lets cover todays develoments here: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=T3PFJK2NVVG1QCRBAEZSFEY?type=worldNews&storyID=514184§ion=news

Isn't that lovely? Israeli forces fire on unarmed protesters and (according to bbc tv neews) blow off a child's leg and blow of another's arm. You'd think the Jews would know better than to persecute an entire race of people...

umm somone! this man is lost.... he ddint read the frist 3 pages of this discussion... anyone? want to help him out here?

[an0n]

,,,,,,,,Change your posts-per-page!!!

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Rictor
True, you could call them homocide-bombers if you like, as FOX does, but it just doesn't imply the same level of fanaticism as "suicide-bomber", which is the reason why most people fear the crazed Muslim hordes etc etc.

Huh. I hadn't looked at it that way. To me, "suicide bomber" has the usual fanatical connotations, what with suicide being so drastic and all, whereas "homicide bomber", while lacking a certain "ring" to it, is more accurate in a way. Sort of: Suicide Bomber: "Woohoo, I strapped a bomb to myself and blew my head off in the middle of nowhere!" Homicide Bomber: "Woohoo, I strapped a bomb to myself and blew my head - and a few other heads as well - off in the middle of a pizza parlor!"

Originally posted by Gank

Lets put this in perspective for you, if when you invaded Jenin you had occupied a house of a family with four young kids and held them there at gunpoint would you not be using them as huuman shields? theres no logical reason for keeping them there, they clearly dont pose a threat and obviouusly wanted to get the **** away as fast as they could.

Do you believe I'm lying to you when I say that Israeli soldiers do not use human shields? Because we don't, and I'm not.

Israeli soldiers have - on a personal, human being to human being level, not as some IDF-sponsored "look good" campaign - many times left behind money in attempts to compensate Palestinian households for any damages, for the ordeals they have been put through just by having armed soldiers in their houses, etc.

Or you can look at it this way. While it may be up for debate whether the Palestinians have actively used their own women and children as human shields against Israeli soldiers, you cannot deny that they seem to have little to no cumpunctions about allowing the women and children to be present in cross-fire. Therefore, how stupid would I have to be to "trust" that they would not simply risk harming one of their own to get at me?

Originally posted by Gank
no dying for their cause means they died trying to further their aims. If theres any percieved nobleness about it its in your mind, not mine. Martyred would be the proper word for the first meaning you've listed.

Ok, I can see how you understand it to mean that. Kinda stretching IMO, but that's your perogative. So, by your definition, suicide bombers are most definitely not martyrs, correct?

[an0n]

The IDF suffers from the same stupidity as the US armed forces, only where the US has rednecks and boredom, the IDF has nationalistic morons and boredom.

[vyper]

My argument still stands regardless of the point I posted it at. The IDF are being arses if they think this is good strategy. World opinion doesn't take kindly to innocent protesters being blown to ****.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by vyper
My argument still stands regardless of the point I posted it at. The IDF are being arses if they think this is good strategy. World opinion doesn't take kindly to innocent protesters being blown to ****.

I would tend to agree in a way... I'll wait until investigations into the things reach conclusions though.

[an0n]

**** 'world opinion'. The world can't even agree wether slavery is a valid industry or not.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Rictor
Thirdly: Splinter, your position can only be considered valid if you assume that all Palestinians are terrorists and that all Palestinians want to drive the Jews in to the sea, which is utter bull****. The various militant groups were created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation and subsequent oppression. They weren't around in 1948, and didn't just one day materialize out of thin air. And some, like Hamas, were created BY Israel. I mean literally created, started, funded, the whole deal. Without these two assumptions, all your arguements are baseless and false. [/B]

wow utter BS?  really then I suggest you go view their online resources and such because they have no shame in publicly stating thier goals... but you seem to find shame in listening to them. I have argued this point with thousands of people before NOT ONE has ever been gone on and told these terrorist groups what they are fighting for... uh yes listen guys I this guy on the forums you were fighting for a state not to kill the Jews and drown them in the sea, could you please just change your criteria for a bit? Thanks. You crack me up man

The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights.    "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."     "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "    "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."    "After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."  

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

Today, Palestinian Islamic Jihad is committed to the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through a jihad (holy war).

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/PIJ.html

Fatah online constitution: Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.  
Article (22) Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine, as well as any project intended to liquidate the Palestinian case or impose any international mandate on its people.
 

http://www.fateh.net/e_public/constitution.htm#The%20Essential%20Principles%20of%20the

and exactly how would that affect what I have said? Because as writing these posts I am pretty sure I know that not all Palestinians are terrorists and I DO know for a fact that all Palestinian terrorists want to push Israel into the sea... that in mind show me where my posts were baseless and false.

Originally posted by Gank
Footage was shown on skynews, thats a tv station, if you want the footage contact them. And a man and a woman with their kids arent going to attack a dozen heavily armed soldiers.

you would be so surprised.

Originally posted by Gank The fact that they had a family held at gunpoint in a hostile area indicates they were using them as human shields.

really? I would like to hear anyone else here with that kind of warped logic.... anyone? so you truly believe that because they were covering themselves by pointing weapons at the occupants of the house that constitutes using them as human shields? so anytime the army has done house to house searches for weapons and has covered the occupants with guns... thats using them as human shields... look dude unless the soldiers were holding the people in front of them and shooting form behind them out at militants they were not being used as human shields... ask anyone here you are being ridiculous.

Originally posted by Gank Actually it was a group of soldiers who kept them there all night in the book, you shouldn’t rely on hollywood for your knowlege of these events

I wasnt pointing out the movie for its facts I was pointing out the situation for the visual aid... thought it might help you understand.

[an0n]

The more astute among you may note that I've not been proven wrong in this thread.

And as any scientist knows, it's right till someone proves it wrong.

Score one for free thought.