Israeli

[s1962a]

Funkycoldribena said:

I think this is what you and your link fell for...
http://www.jta.org/2012/11/26/news-opinion/world/d...

I just read that, and it seems to point the following video

http://www.luckymedia.nl/luckytv/2012/11/burgersla...

Did you post up the wrong link or something?

[s1962a]

Jimbeaux said:

s1962a said:

Jimbeaux said:

s1962a said:

Jimbeaux said:

s1962a said:

“We Purposefully Attack Civilians… Because They Deserve It”

Netanyahu said:

“The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne,”

A bit out of context perhaps? Hit the "Arabs" hard could well mean the Hamas fighters. Where in that link does it say he means hit civilians hard?

This is the full text and context

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=399_1354329853

Thanks, but other than "moving America his way", and "hitting the Arabs hard", there was nothing in there to show where the quote in the title "We purposely target civilians" came from. Surely you see this is not standing up to its own headline.

Actually, these aren't my views. I read the article and put it up for debate as it had a video to corroborate it.

In your opinion, what do you think he is saying?

IMO, he was not speaking of civilians at all. I understand you were not saying this video was reflecting your views neccessarily, it was just a debate topic. I respect that.

This is the difficulty corroborating these things - there is a ton of useless/useful informtion on the net, and just sifting through twitter gives you so many related stories.

A few days ago franki68 put up a link which seemed dubious, and I asked the question whether we should only post links from mainstream media, and whether random sites are allowed - Mrr T and franki68 didn't see anything wrong with it so I took from that that it is allowed.

[s1962a]

No one else find it a bit strange that the IDF's intelligence didn't point to this "weapons development centre" at anytime in the last month, but overnight decided the university is a very dangerous place?

[Funkycoldribena]

Jimbeaux said:

s1962a said:

Jimbeaux said:

s1962a said:

Jimbeaux said:

s1962a said:

“We Purposefully Attack Civilians… Because They Deserve It”

Netanyahu said:

“The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne,”

A bit out of context perhaps? Hit the "Arabs" hard could well mean the Hamas fighters. Where in that link does it say he means hit civilians hard?

This is the full text and context

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=399_1354329853

Thanks, but other than "moving America his way", and "hitting the Arabs hard", there was nothing in there to show where the quote in the title "We purposely target civilians" came from. Surely you see this is not standing up to its own headline.

Actually, these aren't my views. I read the article and put it up for debate as it had a video to corroborate it.

In your opinion, what do you think he is saying?

IMO, he was not speaking of civilians at all. I understand you were not saying this video was reflecting your views neccessarily, it was just a debate topic. I respect that.

I don't.If I'd made such a monumental cock up posting fake propaganda links he would have been all over me like a fly on st.Maybe he'll realise now that its very easy to get fooled.

[Mrr T]

s1962a said:

No one else find it a bit strange that the IDF's intelligence didn't point to this "weapons development centre" at anytime in the last month, but overnight decided the university is a very dangerous place?

To quote Dick Cheney “ There are known, unknowns, and unknown , unknowns”

[raftom]

Jimbeaux said:

Thanks, but other than "moving America his way", and "hitting the Arabs hard", there was nothing in there to show where the quote in the title "We purposely target civilians" came from.

It came from the same batst crazy alternate reality from where all the other 'Global Research' stories come from.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

[Octoposse]

Jimbeaux said:

All the US had to do was stand behind it. Instead, our SOS John Kerry went to Qatar and engaged the Hamas lawyers. He then walks into the process, like a bull in a china shop, with a proposal that basically gave in to all of Hamas' demands. Not only did this add legitimacy to Hamas, but it upended the process.

Where to start . . .

Well, the idea that you can have peace talks without involving one side is a bit . . .er, one sided!

"Add legitimacy to Hamas"?? But they are the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, much as Israel and US prefer to appoint/annoint their own. Their demands look legitimate as well - the idea that long term peace can be achieved by just making Gaza a more secure mega-prison for its population is not only evil but misguided.

And by any standards Kerry looks locked into a ludicrously pro-Israeli position: "The international community must now redouble its efforts to end the tunnel and rocket attacks by Hamas terrorists on Israel". Israel picked this fight on the basis of a lie (stupidly - doesn't look like they're going to come out of this looking more secure, despite the huge disparity in death and destruction), but Hamas are the terrorists?

[league67]

JagLover said:

deadslow said:

I should say that, by their actions, the Israelis are condemning themselves to be bombed and hated for a generation.

Given that the "peace process" started an intensive suicide bombing campaign I think the Israelis might be forgiven to conclude that security comes from walls, and securing the international borders of Gaza and the West bank, rather than Palestinian goodwill.

International borders?

[Jimbeaux]

Octoposse said:

Jimbeaux said:

All the US had to do was stand behind it. Instead, our SOS John Kerry went to Qatar and engaged the Hamas lawyers. He then walks into the process, like a bull in a china shop, with a proposal that basically gave in to all of Hamas' demands. Not only did this add legitimacy to Hamas, but it upended the process.

Where to start . . .

Well, the idea that you can have peace talks without involving one side is a bit . . .er, one sided!

"Add legitimacy to Hamas"?? But they are the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, much as Israel and US prefer to appoint/annoint their own. Their demands look legitimate as well - the idea that long term peace can be achieved by just making Gaza a more secure mega-prison for its population is not only evil but misguided.

And by any standards Kerry looks locked into a ludicrously pro-Israeli position: "The international community must now redouble its efforts to end the tunnel and rocket attacks by Hamas terrorists on Israel". Israel picked this fight on the basis of a lie (stupidly - doesn't look like they're going to come out of this looking more secure, despite the huge disparity in death and destruction), but Hamas are the terrorists?

Of course you involve them, by bringing the proposal to them then negotiating, not undermining every other player in the world first.

But of course, calling for tunnels and hamas rockets to stop is just ludicrous. You sound a bit like that Global Research site. Nah, you're not that bad.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Saturday 2nd August 19:24

[league67]

Funkycoldribena said:

league67 said:

For simpletons, of course it is, it's the only way to make sense of the world. How do you put your bra right way up in the morning is anyone's guess.

Oh dear,getting to you again aren't I...
Still waiting...there's still only two possible answers,instead of mudslinging just answer,it really isn't hard.You wont though because you know where Im going to go with it...

I have no idea, or care where you go with anything. I consider you cheap entertainment. You are on par with that tard who couldn't figure out that there were 2 missiles in those pictures and after that to quote from uncyclopedia. Not that one expects anything else from conspiracy theorists.

[s1962a]

Funkycoldribena said:

Jimbeaux said:

s1962a said:

Jimbeaux said:

s1962a said:

Jimbeaux said:

s1962a said:

“We Purposefully Attack Civilians… Because They Deserve It”

Netanyahu said:

“The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne,”

A bit out of context perhaps? Hit the "Arabs" hard could well mean the Hamas fighters. Where in that link does it say he means hit civilians hard?

This is the full text and context

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=399_1354329853

Thanks, but other than "moving America his way", and "hitting the Arabs hard", there was nothing in there to show where the quote in the title "We purposely target civilians" came from. Surely you see this is not standing up to its own headline.

Actually, these aren't my views. I read the article and put it up for debate as it had a video to corroborate it.

In your opinion, what do you think he is saying?

IMO, he was not speaking of civilians at all. I understand you were not saying this video was reflecting your views neccessarily, it was just a debate topic. I respect that.

I don't.If I'd made such a monumental cock up posting fake propaganda links he would have been all over me like a fly on st.Maybe he'll realise now that its very easy to get fooled.

The only thing in question here is whether Netanyahu talked about innocent civilians when talking about 'Arabs'. Since you want to labour this point, if a tinpot hamas leader said the same thing about 'Israelis', you could assume he's not just talking about the IDF, and you probably would be right.

[league67]

So when Bibi says hitting arabs hard, he means hitting Hamas fighters hard. Does that mean when Hamas calls for killing of Israelis, they actually mean killing only IDF soldiers?

One terrorist organization killed over 1600 people in a few weeks, the other killed less than 100. One killed mostly civilians, the other killed less than two percent civilians.

Ah but what about Jenin!?! Yes, what about Jenin.

Ah, of course, I forgot, Palestinians actually 'love death' so IDF is just fulfilling their wishes, kind of like Santa and it's not even Christmas.

[Funkycoldribena]

league67 said:

I have no idea, or care where you go with anything. I consider you cheap entertainment. You are on par with that tard who couldn't figure out that there were 2 missiles in those pictures and after that to quote from uncyclopedia. Not that one expects anything else from conspiracy theorists.

Edited by Funkycoldribena on Saturday 2nd August 18:46

[Funkycoldribena]

I've edited my last post because I really don't need to sink to your level.Im out.

[RedTrident]

I see Israel are withdrawing in an attempt to avoid negotiating. Just re affirms the believe that many of us hold, that Israel does not want to see a Palestinian state ever emerge.

I'd really like to see the UK stop dealing with Israel, stop selling them arms, stop all trade and stop blindly voting with the US in support of a terrorist state.

[Alpinestars]

allnighter said:

Indeed. Ethnic cleansing in this case is the systematic and forced removal of the members of an ethnic group from communities in order to change the ethnic composition of a given region.
This begs the question what do pro-Israel revisionists think Zionism is? If they wish to pass Zionism off as an inclusive ideology, then why were the Zionists so adamantly against the refugees right of return? They know as well as Ben-Gurion did and Benny Morris does, that the Jewish State does not want Arabs.

So, why are the ardent pro-Israel camp on here trying to hide what the beloved founding father Ben-Gurion said

[note]Edited by allnighter on Saturday 2nd August 12:56[/footnote]

Quite. That's my point. If Israel was created by terror, ostensibly because their ancestors lived there in the distant past, why do the same rules not apply to the current Palestinians? Why can they not reclaim their "ancestors'" land by terrorism?

[Transmitter Man]

Octoposse said:

here to start . . .

Well, the idea that you can have peace talks without involving one side is a bit . . .er, one sided!

"Add legitimacy to Hamas"?? But they are the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, much as Israel and US prefer to appoint/annoint their own. Their demands look legitimate as well - the idea that long term peace can be achieved by just making Gaza a more secure mega-prison for its population is not only evil but misguided.

And by any standards Kerry looks locked into a ludicrously pro-Israeli position: "The international community must now redouble its efforts to end the tunnel and rocket attacks by Hamas terrorists on Israel". Israel picked this fight on the basis of a lie (stupidly - doesn't look like they're going to come out of this looking more secure, despite the huge disparity in death and destruction), but Hamas are the terrorists?

If 'all' tunnels are 'completely' destroyed and cement deliveries are stopped then I think Israel will feel more secure.

I'm sure Sissi will do all he can to hinder arms deliveries across the Sinai.

[Jimbeaux]

league67 said:

So when Bibi says hitting arabs hard, he means hitting Hamas fighters hard. Does that mean when Hamas calls for killing of Israelis, they actually mean killing only IDF soldiers?

One terrorist organization killed over 1600 people in a few weeks, the other killed less than 100. One killed mostly civilians, the other killed less than two percent civilians.

Ah but what about Jenin!?! Yes, what about Jenin.

Ah, of course, I forgot, Palestinians actually 'love death' so IDF is just fulfilling their wishes, kind of like Santa and it's not even Christmas.

League, that is really not accurate IMO. Hamas would kill more if they were capable. The IDF could kill far more than they have. Capability does not equal intent.

[Jimbeaux]

RedTrident said:

I see Israel are withdrawing in an attempt to avoid negotiating. Just re affirms the believe that many of us hold, that Israel does not want to see a Palestinian state ever emerge.

I'd really like to see the UK stop dealing with Israel, stop selling them arms, stop all trade and stop blindly voting with the US in support of a terrorist state.

You may be surprised that that may hurt the UK. There are certain software programs that are proprietary to Israel and used by the West.

[crosseyedlion]

Jimbeaux said:

You may be surprised that that may hurt the UK. There are certain software programs that are proprietary to Israel and used by the West.

Any examples?