Israeli

[Mrr T]

jonby said:

s1962a said:

Bit rich selling weapons that kill people, and then complaining their weapons are being used to kill children.

Absolutely. That would be like launching weapons from & hiding weapons in schools then complaining when the schools are hit in return. Oh wait a minute.........

to be fair btw, I do actually kind of agree with you

Weapons kill people and do not discriminate between adults and children.

[s1962a]

Jimbeaux said:

s1962a said:

Jimbeaux said:

jonby said:

Mrr T said:

You also need to update your analogy to include the about 3,000 commercial greenhouses bought by benefactors from the settlers to be given to those in Gaza to start to rebuild the economy which where immediately trashed and destroyed by mobs.

I've never got my head around that one

It was tainted by Zionists hands; those greenhouses would have grown plants with flowers resembling cartoons of the prophet. Sounds silly? Not so much really.

Might have also made it harder to bomb the area, killing innocent people and children. Sounds silly?

Ah, see, neither of our extreme views were accurate, they were looted.

This might be a bit more insightful.

[otolith]

s1962a said:

Someone please explain why this family was targeted?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-gaza-11-mem...

Unless there is something that the article is not saying, it seems unlikely that they were.

[s1962a]

Mrr T said:

jonby said:

s1962a said:

Bit rich selling weapons that kill people, and then complaining their weapons are being used to kill children.

Absolutely. That would be like launching weapons from & hiding weapons in schools then complaining when the schools are hit in return. Oh wait a minute.........

to be fair btw, I do actually kind of agree with you

Weapons kill people and do not discriminate between adults and children.

Weapons don't kill people on their own. Someone has to aim and fire. In a densely populated area, what kind of person would fire a non precise weapon into there? As the IDF are a highly trained bunch, and the weaponry some of the best in the world, I believe they don't care whether there are children casualties when pulling the trigger.

[s1962a]

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/07/idf-sniper-a...



If true, this guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a combat zone. What a loony.

[Mr Snap]

Jimbeaux said:

Mr Snap said:

Jimbeaux said:

Yep, been a corrupting influence on PH for about 10 years. So pained that I do not meet your standards for being above contempt; not sure how I will live with myself. Which part was "bigoted"? Would hate to miss that. That said, what army intenet on killing as many civilians as possible would drop any warning leaflets?? Wake up please. Sarcasm aside from both parties, we probably would get on in person TBH.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 30th July 15:10

Ah, the curtain gets pulled aside a little.

Lots of armies have dropped leaflets cynically warning civilians to move.

The Nazis did it over London and the Allies responded in kind. And I'm sure you're already aware that the US leaflets, advising Japanese to leave Hiroshima, were dropped only three or four days after the bomb itself...

You know no history and this means you can be taken to pieces if you want to pick historical arguments. I'd drop that tack if I was you.

Sarcasm aside, we most certainly wouldn't.

Cynically dropped leaflets? Nazis again? Hiroshima? I love dealing with self inflated narcissists such as yourself, you are far too easy. If you wish to attempt a "pick apart" of me, please feel free to proceed. There are people who have disagreed vehemently on PH for years, yet end up civil and agreeing to disagree. Take Allnighter as a recent example on this very thread. Every so often a true self important patronizing warrior such as yourself hops along and violates that etiquette. Congratulations, of all on this thread, you are the top gilipollas. Oh my, I have lowered myself to name calling too.

You asked me "That said, what army intenet on killing as many civilians as possible would drop any warning leaflets??" and I gave you three examples in no specific order. The Nazis, the Allies and the US. - and I can give you chapter and verse on all of them. You asked for examples and you got them. I could give you more. I could also give you examples of armies that couldn't be bothered to leaflet innocent people and invented the useful concept of "Free Fire Zones" to save on printing costs, but I doubt you'd want to go there either.

So, I'm a self inflated narcissist, eh? For answering your question? Don't you earn enough as a "Consultant in Emergency Management and Homeland Security" to get by, Jim? Are you doing a bit of psychotherapy on the side? Interesting circumlocution, though, "I carry no weapon as part of my job"... Doesn't exactly exclude the possibility that you carry a gun, does it? How about when you're off duty? There's nothing quite like a gun to give a real-life, self-inflated, narcissist a bit of a boost, is there...

And while we're at it, I do love the whole "Homeland Security" thing you've got going there. It's so reassuring to know that in this weary old world, there's good ol' Jimbeaux defending the "Homeland" peace, truth and the american way. It must give so many US citizens such a lovely warm fluffy feeling to know that their "Homelands" are being defended by Jimbeaux. Shame you don't feel that innocent Palestinians deserve the same care in their "Homelands". It kinda makes you wonder if "Homeland" might have different meanings to different people - that someone else's "Homeland" means absolutely nothing to you.

As for the self-importance, that's a bit rich coming from a reactionary bloke from the US pontificating on a predominantly British website. We already have our own bigots and fantasists for that, we don't really need any more (and I'm sure they don't like you coming over here and stealing their jobs). Don't you have any friends at home to play with?

Don't worry about the name calling. Not coming from the "Homeland", I already knew that the avuncular bonhomie was a flimsy front.

[Scuffers]

yes, I am sure that's 100%

[Mrr T]

s1962a said:

Weapons don't kill people on their own. Someone has to aim and fire. In a densely populated area, what kind of person would fire a non precise weapon into there? As the IDF are a highly trained bunch, and the weaponry some of the best in the world, I believe they don't care whether there are children casualties when pulling the trigger.

Would they fire if Hamas where not lobbing missiles into Israel and now it looks as if they where building tunnels into Israel. Do you think the tunnels where for some sort of adventure ride or to give suicide bombers access to Israel.

A government first job is to protect its population. That may involves deliberately killing civilian. .

[s1962a]

Mrr T said:

s1962a said:

Weapons don't kill people on their own. Someone has to aim and fire. In a densely populated area, what kind of person would fire a non precise weapon into there? As the IDF are a highly trained bunch, and the weaponry some of the best in the world, I believe they don't care whether there are children casualties when pulling the trigger.

Would they fire if Hamas where not lobbing missiles into Israel and now it looks as if they where building tunnels into Israel. Do you think the tunnels where for some sort of adventure ride or to give suicide bombers access to Israel.

A government first job is to protect its population. That may involves deliberately killing civilian. .

Thank you for stating that. It's a shame Mark Regev is trying to do a good impression of Comical Ali

[Mrr T]

s1962a said:

Mrr T said:

s1962a said:

Weapons don't kill people on their own. Someone has to aim and fire. In a densely populated area, what kind of person would fire a non precise weapon into there? As the IDF are a highly trained bunch, and the weaponry some of the best in the world, I believe they don't care whether there are children casualties when pulling the trigger.

Would they fire if Hamas where not lobbing missiles into Israel and now it looks as if they where building tunnels into Israel. Do you think the tunnels where for some sort of adventure ride or to give suicide bombers access to Israel.

A government first job is to protect its population. That may involves deliberately killing civilian. .

Thank you for stating that. It's a shame Mark Regev is trying to do a good impression of Comical Ali

In war the first causality is truth.

Which means all sides lie.and spin.

The difference is Mark Regav must face the questions of a hostile press where as Hamas statements do not seem to get questioned.

[Zeeky]

They do...


http://www.channel4.com/news/hamas-israel-started-...

[Jimbeaux]

Mr Snap said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mr Snap said:

Jimbeaux said:

Yep, been a corrupting influence on PH for about 10 years. So pained that I do not meet your standards for being above contempt; not sure how I will live with myself. Which part was "bigoted"? Would hate to miss that. That said, what army intenet on killing as many civilians as possible would drop any warning leaflets?? Wake up please. Sarcasm aside from both parties, we probably would get on in person TBH.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 30th July 15:10

Ah, the curtain gets pulled aside a little.

Lots of armies have dropped leaflets cynically warning civilians to move.

The Nazis did it over London and the Allies responded in kind. And I'm sure you're already aware that the US leaflets, advising Japanese to leave Hiroshima, were dropped only three or four days after the bomb itself...

You know no history and this means you can be taken to pieces if you want to pick historical arguments. I'd drop that tack if I was you.

Sarcasm aside, we most certainly wouldn't.

Cynically dropped leaflets? Nazis again? Hiroshima? I love dealing with self inflated narcissists such as yourself, you are far too easy. If you wish to attempt a "pick apart" of me, please feel free to proceed. There are people who have disagreed vehemently on PH for years, yet end up civil and agreeing to disagree. Take Allnighter as a recent example on this very thread. Every so often a true self important patronizing warrior such as yourself hops along and violates that etiquette. Congratulations, of all on this thread, you are the top gilipollas. Oh my, I have lowered myself to name calling too.

You asked me "That said, what army intenet on killing as many civilians as possible would drop any warning leaflets??" and I gave you three examples in no specific order. The Nazis, the Allies and the US. - and I can give you chapter and verse on all of them. You asked for examples and you got them. I could give you more. I could also give you examples of armies that couldn't be bothered to leaflet innocent people and invented the useful concept of "Free Fire Zones" to save on printing costs, but I doubt you'd want to go there either.

So, I'm a self inflated narcissist, eh? For answering your question? Don't you earn enough as a "Consultant in Emergency Management and Homeland Security" to get by, Jim? Are you doing a bit of psychotherapy on the side? Interesting circumlocution, though, "I carry no weapon as part of my job"... Doesn't exactly exclude the possibility that you carry a gun, does it? How about when you're off duty? There's nothing quite like a gun to give a real-life, self-inflated, narcissist a bit of a boost, is there...

And while we're at it, I do love the whole "Homeland Security" thing you've got going there. It's so reassuring to know that in this weary old world, there's good ol' Jimbeaux defending the "Homeland" peace, truth and the american way. It must give so many US citizens such a lovely warm fluffy feeling to know that their "Homelands" are being defended by Jimbeaux. Shame you don't feel that innocent Palestinians deserve the same care in their "Homelands". It kinda makes you wonder if "Homeland" might have different meanings to different people - that someone else's "Homeland" means absolutely nothing to you.

As for the self-importance, that's a bit rich coming from a reactionary bloke from the US pontificating on a predominantly British website. We already have our own bigots and fantasists for that, we don't really need any more (and I'm sure they don't like you coming over here and stealing their jobs). Don't you have any friends at home to play with?

Don't worry about the name calling. Not coming from the "Homeland", I already knew that the avuncular bonhomie was a flimsy front.

Damn you are easy! As for the British not wanting me on their PH site, you should have PH ban me.

[Jimbeaux]

s1962a said:

Jimbeaux said:

s1962a said:

Jimbeaux said:

jonby said:

Mrr T said:

You also need to update your analogy to include the about 3,000 commercial greenhouses bought by benefactors from the settlers to be given to those in Gaza to start to rebuild the economy which where immediately trashed and destroyed by mobs.

I've never got my head around that one

It was tainted by Zionists hands; those greenhouses would have grown plants with flowers resembling cartoons of the prophet. Sounds silly? Not so much really.

Might have also made it harder to bomb the area, killing innocent people and children. Sounds silly?

Ah, see, neither of our extreme views were accurate, they were looted.

This might be a bit more insightful.

Although we will continue to disagree, I appreciate that you remain cordial in your debate; thanks for that. Unsure at the moment but I may have to be in London in October. If so, are you in that vicinity? I could buy us a pint and argue in person; or if you prefer, compare the E90 to the F30.
This also applies to anyone else on PH who may be around and likes to:
1)Drink 2)Argue 3)Drink 4)Discuss cars 5)Drink.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Thursday 31st July 17:10

[Funkycoldribena]

Jimbeaux said:

Mr Snap said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mr Snap said:

Jimbeaux said:

Yep, been a corrupting influence on PH for about 10 years. So pained that I do not meet your standards for being above contempt; not sure how I will live with myself. Which part was "bigoted"? Would hate to miss that. That said, what army intenet on killing as many civilians as possible would drop any warning leaflets?? Wake up please. Sarcasm aside from both parties, we probably would get on in person TBH.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 30th July 15:10

Ah, the curtain gets pulled aside a little.

Lots of armies have dropped leaflets cynically warning civilians to move.

The Nazis did it over London and the Allies responded in kind. And I'm sure you're already aware that the US leaflets, advising Japanese to leave Hiroshima, were dropped only three or four days after the bomb itself...

You know no history and this means you can be taken to pieces if you want to pick historical arguments. I'd drop that tack if I was you.

Sarcasm aside, we most certainly wouldn't.

Cynically dropped leaflets? Nazis again? Hiroshima? I love dealing with self inflated narcissists such as yourself, you are far too easy. If you wish to attempt a "pick apart" of me, please feel free to proceed. There are people who have disagreed vehemently on PH for years, yet end up civil and agreeing to disagree. Take Allnighter as a recent example on this very thread. Every so often a true self important patronizing warrior such as yourself hops along and violates that etiquette. Congratulations, of all on this thread, you are the top gilipollas. Oh my, I have lowered myself to name calling too.

You asked me "That said, what army intenet on killing as many civilians as possible would drop any warning leaflets??" and I gave you three examples in no specific order. The Nazis, the Allies and the US. - and I can give you chapter and verse on all of them. You asked for examples and you got them. I could give you more. I could also give you examples of armies that couldn't be bothered to leaflet innocent people and invented the useful concept of "Free Fire Zones" to save on printing costs, but I doubt you'd want to go there either.

So, I'm a self inflated narcissist, eh? For answering your question? Don't you earn enough as a "Consultant in Emergency Management and Homeland Security" to get by, Jim? Are you doing a bit of psychotherapy on the side? Interesting circumlocution, though, "I carry no weapon as part of my job"... Doesn't exactly exclude the possibility that you carry a gun, does it? How about when you're off duty? There's nothing quite like a gun to give a real-life, self-inflated, narcissist a bit of a boost, is there...

And while we're at it, I do love the whole "Homeland Security" thing you've got going there. It's so reassuring to know that in this weary old world, there's good ol' Jimbeaux defending the "Homeland" peace, truth and the american way. It must give so many US citizens such a lovely warm fluffy feeling to know that their "Homelands" are being defended by Jimbeaux. Shame you don't feel that innocent Palestinians deserve the same care in their "Homelands". It kinda makes you wonder if "Homeland" might have different meanings to different people - that someone else's "Homeland" means absolutely nothing to you.

As for the self-importance, that's a bit rich coming from a reactionary bloke from the US pontificating on a predominantly British website. We already have our own bigots and fantasists for that, we don't really need any more (and I'm sure they don't like you coming over here and stealing their jobs). Don't you have any friends at home to play with?

Don't worry about the name calling. Not coming from the "Homeland", I already knew that the avuncular bonhomie was a flimsy front.

Damn you are easy! As for the British not wanting me on their PH site, you should have PH ban me.

I've got this teeny tiny feeling that you might of got to him.

[Jimbeaux]

Funkycoldribena said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mr Snap said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mr Snap said:

Jimbeaux said:

Yep, been a corrupting influence on PH for about 10 years. So pained that I do not meet your standards for being above contempt; not sure how I will live with myself. Which part was "bigoted"? Would hate to miss that. That said, what army intenet on killing as many civilians as possible would drop any warning leaflets?? Wake up please. Sarcasm aside from both parties, we probably would get on in person TBH.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 30th July 15:10

Ah, the curtain gets pulled aside a little.

Lots of armies have dropped leaflets cynically warning civilians to move.

The Nazis did it over London and the Allies responded in kind. And I'm sure you're already aware that the US leaflets, advising Japanese to leave Hiroshima, were dropped only three or four days after the bomb itself...

You know no history and this means you can be taken to pieces if you want to pick historical arguments. I'd drop that tack if I was you.

Sarcasm aside, we most certainly wouldn't.

Cynically dropped leaflets? Nazis again? Hiroshima? I love dealing with self inflated narcissists such as yourself, you are far too easy. If you wish to attempt a "pick apart" of me, please feel free to proceed. There are people who have disagreed vehemently on PH for years, yet end up civil and agreeing to disagree. Take Allnighter as a recent example on this very thread. Every so often a true self important patronizing warrior such as yourself hops along and violates that etiquette. Congratulations, of all on this thread, you are the top gilipollas. Oh my, I have lowered myself to name calling too.

You asked me "That said, what army intenet on killing as many civilians as possible would drop any warning leaflets??" and I gave you three examples in no specific order. The Nazis, the Allies and the US. - and I can give you chapter and verse on all of them. You asked for examples and you got them. I could give you more. I could also give you examples of armies that couldn't be bothered to leaflet innocent people and invented the useful concept of "Free Fire Zones" to save on printing costs, but I doubt you'd want to go there either.

So, I'm a self inflated narcissist, eh? For answering your question? Don't you earn enough as a "Consultant in Emergency Management and Homeland Security" to get by, Jim? Are you doing a bit of psychotherapy on the side? Interesting circumlocution, though, "I carry no weapon as part of my job"... Doesn't exactly exclude the possibility that you carry a gun, does it? How about when you're off duty? There's nothing quite like a gun to give a real-life, self-inflated, narcissist a bit of a boost, is there...

And while we're at it, I do love the whole "Homeland Security" thing you've got going there. It's so reassuring to know that in this weary old world, there's good ol' Jimbeaux defending the "Homeland" peace, truth and the american way. It must give so many US citizens such a lovely warm fluffy feeling to know that their "Homelands" are being defended by Jimbeaux. Shame you don't feel that innocent Palestinians deserve the same care in their "Homelands". It kinda makes you wonder if "Homeland" might have different meanings to different people - that someone else's "Homeland" means absolutely nothing to you.

As for the self-importance, that's a bit rich coming from a reactionary bloke from the US pontificating on a predominantly British website. We already have our own bigots and fantasists for that, we don't really need any more (and I'm sure they don't like you coming over here and stealing their jobs). Don't you have any friends at home to play with?

Don't worry about the name calling. Not coming from the "Homeland", I already knew that the avuncular bonhomie was a flimsy front.

Damn you are easy! As for the British not wanting me on their PH site, you should have PH ban me.

I've got this teeny tiny feeling that you might of got to him.

Who's that? Oh him; sorry, I'd forgotten.

[league67]

jonby said:

s1962a said:

Bit rich selling weapons that kill people, and then complaining their weapons are being used to kill children.

Absolutely. That would be like launching weapons from & hiding weapons in schools then complaining when the schools are hit in return. Oh wait a minute.........

to be fair btw, I do actually kind of agree with you

Or, you can drop leaflets telling people to evacuate, and when they do, you actually hit the shelter, and then say 'oh, you know, it's not certain it was us'.

And since there were no firing of rockets from the school, you come up with 'well, from around that area'. And just repeating the same, and to make sure that people do get the message, you confirm, that you really, really, really 'don't target civilians'. Those 1200 are just, y'know, mistakes and collateral damage, and most likely killed by Hamas or other terrorists.

Of course, it's not about collective punishment, cause that would be against Geneva convention, and as only upstanding democracy in the middle East, you do care about rule of law. Y'know. Even that pesky Kerry is not toeing party line.

If Ayelet Shaked solution is too extreme, maybe this is the way forward;

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/israeli-professor-rape-ha...

That is from someone who is highly educated. Clever.

[Octoposse]

Mrr T said:

Would they fire if Hamas where not lobbing missiles into Israel and now it looks as if they where building tunnels into Israel. Do you think the tunnels where for some sort of adventure ride or to give suicide bombers access to Israel.

A government first job is to protect its population. That may involves deliberately killing civilian. .

Where to start . . . .

Well: "A government's first job is to protect its population". Quit so, and that is exactly what Hamas is seeking to do. The alternative to resistance appears consigning its population, present and future, to scratching a living in a bantustan whose borders (land, sea and air) are controlled by countries hostile to its wellbeing.

"and now it looks as if they where building tunnels into Israel". Looks like it. So one side in this conflict has a navy, nuclear weapons, tanks, armoured bulldozers, white phosperous munitions, precision guided weapons, artillery and jet fighters . . . and the other side have buckets and spades.

The side that has all the kit clearly wants to live in peace, but not apparently make peace as that will involve undoubtedly extremely painful concessions. Where's the incentive so to do at the moment when the world tolerates letting all that kit loose on women and children, and a benevolent Uncle Sam rushes you more ammo when you start to run low?

[Jimbeaux]

Guam said:

Jimbeaux said:

Damn you are easy! As for the British not wanting me on their PH site, you should have PH ban me.

He doesnt speak for everyone Jim, although he likes to believe he does

I am well aware of that G, I've been here a long time. He really is of no concern to me. Thanks though!

[jonby]

s1962a said:

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/07/idf-sniper-a...



If true, this guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a combat zone. What a loony.

could;t agree more. One would hope pretty much everyone would agree that (as you say, most importantly, if true) action be taken against someone like that- it goes way beyond being a loony

[Jimbeaux]

jonby said:

s1962a said:

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/07/idf-sniper-a...



If true, this guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a combat zone. What a loony.

could;t agree more. One would hope pretty much everyone would agree that (as you say, most importantly, if true) action be taken against someone like that- it goes way beyond being a loony

Agreed; these types need to be weeded out.