Well, you are not talking to Untouchables, if that is what you think. In any case, you have made a rather scurrilous accusation against Cass and have refused to back it up. At least everyone can now see (if they haven't already) that you are full of shit. You are very quick to play the race card, but are incapable of backing it up or of participating in reasonable discussion. No doubt by saying "race card" I have proved that I am a bigot, or something, but if you look back over the various threads you will not find any instance of me (or Cass for that matter) saying something that a reasonable person (i.e. not you) would consider anti-Semetic, and I challenge you to do so.

the only difference is that English is your native language.



here you go,


as ive said pointless.
you are full of hatred fanatic who won't find anything offensive about her posting because thats your style as well. This is more or less words of David Dyke whom you praying to before the bed time.

now get back to your lair !

Ahhh... And NOW you're finally getting somewhere... You have a problem with "How" they go after terrorists...

HOW then, would you propose that Israel combat the Palestinian Terrorism "IamMe"??    Do you have a "real world" solution which would stop or drastically reduce Palestinian terrorism/violence short of Israel packing up and going away??... Do you have evidence which would lead a rational person to believe that Hamas is or would be willing to change their agenda of Israel's destruction and hence potentially agree to permenant borders and "right of return" limits which wouldn't ultimately mean Israel's destruction??

As far as your "atrocities"... As I asked you before: ... Why don't you CLEARLY define exactly what you're talking about... And address the possible "why's"??

You didn't do this... WHY??  because you're going to try to equate Israeli actions to those of the Palestinians... And you're thinking that if you can call what Israel does an "atrocity", than any "atrocities" committed by the Palestinians aren't any worse... WRONG... (oh my, how did he know... lol  )

So again... Why don't you CLEARLY define exactly what you're talking about... And address the possible "why's"??  WHY Israel may be forced to take certain actions which you want to call "atrocities"


Well, the simple answer is YES...

The "wall" has stopped the overwhelming majority of suicide bombers and "wouldbe" bombers... Has it not??

A second example easily visible is/was the "occupation" of Gaza... While this didn't end the terrorism, it greatly reduced it... HOW DO WE KNOW THIS.. Because as soon as the occupation of Gaza ended, THE TERRORISM from Gaza greatly grew...

So much for your:

CAN negotiation work??  Absolutely... And it's certainly PREFERRED over violence... But so long as the Palestinians refuse to confront or deal with Hamas (and the others) on their own, little can change. Hamas openly refuses to ever recognize Israel's right to exist or change their Covenant (which details their agenda toward Israel's destruction).  Hamas currently hold the real "power" (as Fatah has demonstrated they have no policing authority over them)... So long as Hamas and the other violent groups run free in the Palestinian streets,negotiations will yield little other than temporary measures (cease fires) which in the past, and likely in the future, only mean more violence at a later date (after they're re-armed during the cease fire)...

If YOU "IamMe" have a more realistic "real world" alternative, which will permenantly stop (or greatly reduce) the violence, which will satisfy Israel's security needs, while also satisfying Hamas' need to destroy Israel (as it is), I'm all ears

IamMe, once again I thank you for your statements related to the Information Clearing House article mdma clearly failed to bother to read.  Perhaps it is only the result of my frustration with OPINION on the issues continually exploited and claimed to be fact.  I find that particularly true when realityman repeatedly demands  factual proof from others, but continues to express what is nothing, but his opinion when he makes the repeated statements such as this. 

"...negotiations will yield little other than temporary measures (cease fires) which in the past, and likely in the future, only mean more violence at a later date (after they're re-armed during the cease fire)..."

While realityman may be correct in the end, where is his proof that during the current cease fire, which BTW, continues, Hamas is re-arming?  At this point the statement is an assumption only.  But a single statement from realityman's typically preferred Israeli publication makes it clear there is little action, on any level the Israeli government will not take to discredit or destroy Hamas, including the social services provided to those in the West Bank and Gaza by that wing of Hamas.

Gaza crossings to be closed Tuesday
Jul. 7, 2008
Yaakov Katz and JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
Gaza's border crossings will once again remain closed on Tuesday, following instructions by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The decision came after the Gaza truce was breached yet again on Monday afternoon when a mortar shell was fired at the Karni crossing.

The army said the shell landed in an open area near Nahal Oz, causing no casualties or damage.

Last Tuesday, Israel reopened the Gaza crossings, following the closure of the terminals in response to a Kassam attack on Thursday.

Israel has decided to increase its efforts to topple the Hamas cvilian infrastructure in the west Bank and Gaza Strip, (emphasis mine)  and, on Monday, IDF troops stormed Nablus, shutting down a girls' school, a medical center and two other facilities of a Hamas-affiliated charity.

The operation came after Defense Minister Ehud Barak signed an order banning 36 charities - based across the globe - due to the alleged assistance they provide to Hamas's terror operations.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330882589&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Note: IamMe, "Alleged" is always a convenient term used when there is no actual proof related to any action taken be it in an arrest of a person who is possibly involved in criminal activity not based on irrefutable evidence. 

Was that you whining about my personal insults? Ah, you constantly whining don't you? Gonna cry all night long now.


Exactly. read between lines and get your general idea. Any post you made so far condemns Israel. Point taken.
You biased hateful b*.
GG!
Bye Bye!

You never had any.   

Whatever are you on about? Never mind, you just troll.   
... most Israeli's are much more coherent than you mdma (from the drug?  )


Now, back on topic... It is only a matter of time before Israel gets tired of Hamas and others sniping at them before they mount a incursion into Gaza. And it will be a big one.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “going after” terrorists. If you mean any action that is intended to reduce the amount of terrorist activity then the obvious answer is negotiation. However, if we are to restrict ourselves to military force, then there are legitimate and illegitimate ways to do so. One thing that must stop is the targeting of civilian areas for operations that are likely to cause “collateral damage” (the euphemism which means “the deaths of unimportant civilians”), which are a bad idea both from a tactical and a moral point of view. There are other ways of killing Palestinian terrorists that don't involve “collateral damage,” one being targeted raids by special forces, for example.


Atrocities have been defined in international law since the 1930s. I'm going to go with their definition.

By the way, I'm not trying to equate anything - Israel's atrocities are clearly worse. For a long time, the ratio of casualties was 20 Palestinians for every Israeli, and no one cared. It was only when the ratio fell to 3:1 that people cared, about the 1, not the 3. Now, of course, those figures don't take into account who is a civilian and who isn't (nor does it take into account those whose deaths are caused by Israel, but not by direct military action, by the terrible conditions in Gaza), but consistently the death toll is higher among Palestinian civilians.

A quick Googling brought me to this article from 2004. It should provide ample evidence, though I can find reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch if you wish.


Now, why don't you go into the whys and tell me why exactly Israeli atrocities are justified but Palestinian atrocities are not? It is my position that, where violence is concerned, the burden of proof is on the advocates of violence to demonstrate that that violence is legitimate.

But just so there are no “misunderstandings” (by which I mean “distortions by you to score points”) I do not feel firing Kassam rockets, for example, is justified either tactically or morally. I say “tactically” because firing Kassam rockets plays right into the hands of US/Israeli war hawks like you and mdma.


Would this be the same wall that has been declared illegal by the World Court? According to U.S. Judge Buergenthal in his separate declaration attached to the World Court judgement (ruling that the separation wall is illegal): “The Fourth Geneva Convention and International Human Rights Law are applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory and must therefore be fully complied with by Israel. Accordingly, the segments of the wall being built by Israel to protect the settlements are ipso facto in violation of international humanitarian law”

Incidentally, if those tactics had been successful, we would not be having this conversation. Those tactics have not succeeded in the long term in preventing terrorism. But, in any case, I was actually asking for examples from other places that have had problems with terrorists that have been solved with tactics other than negotiation.


Just so you are aware, I do not recognize Israel's “right to exist.” No state has ever had a “right to exist,” and Israel is the only state ever to declare that it has, and to demand that that “right” be accepted. The “right to exist” is a special concept invented by Zionists for Israel, and it refers to the supposed Biblical and historical “right to exist” of a Jewish state in the Holy Land and not the usual rights of a state in international diplomacy. No state has a right to exist. People have a right to exist, but that also includes the Palestinian people.

The demand for its “right to exist” to be recognised is a major barrier to negotiation and should be dropped immediately. It is unrealistic to except the Arabs to declare that their expulsion from their own land is legitimate, just as it is unrealistic to expect Mexico to accept the United States' right to exist on the territory they gained by conquest.