..and why.

At the moment Israel... just

My reasons:

- Hamas does not recognise Israel's right to exist. How can you negotiate with a group that does not think your country should exist?

- Hamas had 2 years without the Israelis. They invested hundreds/thousands of man hours creating weapon's cache's and tunnels. They could have spent this improving the life of Palestinians

- Israelis create bunkers and put their people in them when attacked. Hamas created bunkers and puts weapons in them, then they put familys on top

- Hamas supports the killers of 2 year old children, Isreali's try to avoid death of civilians.

Those are all I can think of off the top of my head

Neither really.
I'm rooting for Israel in the same way that I'd root of the Adelaide crows.

Israel disappoints me less than the crows do.

+1 to the above.

One thing's for sure - it's not something we (the US) should be getting involved in.

The enemy of enemy is...well, beneficial to my cause I guess.

I support the Palestinian freedom in general, but I do not support Hamas' violence nor Israel's. Hamas is far too idiological and violent to get anything done for the good of Palestine and Israel isn't going to stop the violence until their Zionism infects every nation.

Support who you like. One thing is sure: it is all part of larger plans. As has been said by Israelis & shown by 9/11's "5 dancing Israeli movers". Israel wants desperately to keep the US & it's citizens involved ever more deeply in their shit. It is not bad enough that they have the conflict they have: they want to involve we in the West.

They want our blood to spill too...preferably instead of their own. Cunts.

"And worse is yet to come. Israel's Gaza invasion has produced an unusual number of public anti-Israel demonstrations by American Muslims around the United States. The 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war produced similar events, but the current, Gaza-focused demonstrations are angrier and larger in number. How long, one wonders, will it be before Israel's military actions lead to violent clashes in America?

If this occurs, Israel and its American supporters will have the insurance policy they desire above any other, one they are desperate to obtain before Israel takes harsh action – by forced deportation or other means – against its rapidly growing and radicalizing Arab population. Once the Arab-Israeli religious war has been brought into the United States and is producing blood in America's streets, the Israel-firsters will claim the carnage proves that secular America and theocratic Israel are in the same boat and facing the same enemies. Flogging this plausible but palpable lie, AIPAC-owned American leaders will consign this country to an unending war against Islam, the same catastrophe that is Israel's lot."

http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=14000

"To the Moon, Israel, to the Moon!" :mad:

What Argon said.

I am against the zionist agenda.

israel.

Having a pseudo-government (AKA Hamas) launch rockets on your citizens is kind of pesky

Support who you like. One thing is sure: it is all part of larger plans. As has been said by Israelis & shown by 9/11's "5 dancing Israeli movers". Israel wants desperately to keep the US & it's citizens involved ever more deeply in their shit. It is not bad enough that they have the conflict they have: they want to involve we in the West.

They want our blood to spill too...preferably instead of their own. Cunts.

"And worse is yet to come. Israel's Gaza invasion has produced an unusual number of public anti-Israel demonstrations by American Muslims around the United States. The 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war produced similar events, but the current, Gaza-focused demonstrations are angrier and larger in number. How long, one wonders, will it be before Israel's military actions lead to violent clashes in America?

If this occurs, Israel and its American supporters will have the insurance policy they desire above any other, one they are desperate to obtain before Israel takes harsh action – by forced deportation or other means – against its rapidly growing and radicalizing Arab population. Once the Arab-Israeli religious war has been brought into the United States and is producing blood in America's streets, the Israel-firsters will claim the carnage proves that secular America and theocratic Israel are in the same boat and facing the same enemies. Flogging this plausible but palpable lie, AIPAC-owned American leaders will consign this country to an unending war against Islam, the same catastrophe that is Israel's lot."

http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=14000

"To the Moon, Israel, to the Moon!" :mad:

I have to ask, where does this unified Israeli agenda come from?

Israeli politics are among the most fractured and messed up on the planet - proportional representation tends to do that. (it also makes the Knesset far more representative than most other legislatures around the world aside from those with similar electoral systems).

The Knesset as of the 2006 elections for insance:
Kadima 29
Labor-Meimad 19
Likud 12
Shas 12
Yisrael Beiteinu 11
National Union*-National Religious Party 9
Gil (Pensioners) 7
United Torah Judaism 6
Meretz-Yachad 5
United Arab List-Ta'al 4
Hadash 3
Balad 3
Total 120

I am against the zionist agenda.

I agree. So I have to say neither.

The civilians, which neither side really seems to give a shit about. Which I guess means "neither". In fact, a double regime-change Iraqi style looks real good right now.

The civilians, which neither side really seems to give a shit about. Which I guess means "neither". In fact, a double regime-change Iraqi style looks real good right now.

I was mulling over this idea of Iraqi style government earlier as well. It seems like a great compromise to both sides but Israel has too much political clout for it to work fairly. Like, everyone gives a shit to the Jews but no one cares nearly as much for the Palestinians.

I personally don't see why I should care. Israel is a country perfectly capable of taking care of itself. If only the rest of the world could see that.

I have to ask, where does this unified Israeli agenda come from?

Israeli politics are among the most fractured and messed up on the planet - proportional representation tends to do that. (it also makes the Knesset far more representative than most other legislatures around the world aside from those with similar electoral systems).

The Knesset as of the 2006 elections for insance:
Kadima 29
Labor-Meimad 19
Likud 12
Shas 12
Yisrael Beiteinu 11
National Union*-National Religious Party 9
Gil (Pensioners) 7
United Torah Judaism 6
Meretz-Yachad 5
United Arab List-Ta'al 4
Hadash 3
Balad 3
Total 120

Are you really as innocent-seeming as you try to appear? It's hard to tell as all the Israel supporters/partisans are preaching from the same "We are just so nice, so honest, so hard-done-by. Just look! what they made such niiiice people do!" choir-book.

Just typical phony-baloney jingoistic propaganda. Typical of wars. Very much the same jive-ass jive that Madoff scammed his Ponzi victims with. All smiley-faced & innocent-seeming.

Are you just dumb? Are you being disingenuous & sly? I wonder. If you heard Michael Bloomberg being interviewed today (it all over the news) about his trip to I. & his feelings on the War. You probably sucked it up. It was of course all *Sad-faced Clown Bloomberg* all about how hard done by I. is, how patient & long-suffering.

Oh yes, oh my goodness yes! Yeah...sure.

As if hardliners/Zionists don't have a major say in how things go. As if the "vote" is the final decider of how things go. Just like in the rest of the "Democracies". :eek: :rolleyes:

Are you really as innocent-seeming as you try to appear? It's hard to tell as all the Israel supporters/partisans are preaching from the same "We are just so nice, so honest, so hard-done-by. Just look! what they made such niiiice people do!" choir-book.

Just typical phony-baloney jingoistic propaganda. Typical of wars. Very much the same jive-ass jive that Madoff scammed his Ponzi victims with. All smiley-faced & innocent-seeming.

Are you just dumb? Are you being disingenuous & sly? I wonder. If you heard Michael Bloomberg being interviewed today (it all over the news) about his trip to I. & his feelings on the War. You probably sucked it up. It was of course all *Sad-faced Clown Bloomberg* all about how hard done by I. is, how patient & long-suffering.

Oh yes, oh my goodness yes! Yeah...sure.

As if hardliners/Zionists don't have a major say in how things go. As if the "vote" is the final decider of how things go. Just like in the rest of the "Democracies". :eek: :rolleyes:

So who's really pulling the strings? Jewish Bankers?

So who's really pulling the strings? Jewish Bankers?

:rollyeyes: Where do Zionists/Neo-cons/AIPAC fall into your pantheon?

:rollyeyes: Where do Zionists/Neo-cons/AIPAC fall into your pantheon?

I would think that if Israeli politicians are influencing the United States government to act in Israel's interests they're doing a pretty good job from the Israeli perspective.
The fact that Israel is adept at influencing the US says nothing about Israeli politics.

Israeli policy in any case isn't as single minded and determined as you might like to believe.
- for goodness sake Likud split in half a few years ago over withdrawing from the Gaza strip, they've had the kind of political realignment over that most western nations haven't had in 50 or 100 years. Kadima essentially replacing Labour as the left/center alternative to Likud is a massive shift to the right, and is comparable to the demise of the UK liberal party and its replacement by Labour in terms of its scale.
Can you seriously imagine the Libertarian or Green party in the US replacing the republicans or democrats?

Are you really as innocent-seeming as you try to appear? It's hard to tell as all the Israel supporters/partisans are preaching from the same "We are just so nice, so honest, so hard-done-by. Just look! what they made such niiiice people do!" choir-book.

Just typical phony-baloney jingoistic propaganda. Typical of wars. Very much the same jive-ass jive that Madoff scammed his Ponzi victims with. All smiley-faced & innocent-seeming.

Are you just dumb? Are you being disingenuous & sly? I wonder. If you heard Michael Bloomberg being interviewed today (it all over the news) about his trip to I. & his feelings on the War. You probably sucked it up. It was of course all *Sad-faced Clown Bloomberg* all about how hard done by I. is, how patient & long-suffering.

Oh yes, oh my goodness yes! Yeah...sure.

As if hardliners/Zionists don't have a major say in how things go. As if the "vote" is the final decider of how things go. Just like in the rest of the "Democracies". :eek: :rolleyes:

Seriously, I'm not a fucking Israeli shill. I just can't help but call out your bullshit.

I suggested that the timing of this whole affair was probably aimed to help Kadima win the next election in the other thread for fucks sake. YEAH politically motivated wars! FUCK YEAR ISRAEL ROCKS.
I wouldn't see Michael Bloomberg on the news because we don't give a shit about the Mayor of New York in Australia.
I don't even own a TV!
(why fucking bother when you have the internet?)

Seriously, I'm not a fucking Israeli shill. I just can't help but call out your bullshit.

I suggested that the timing of this whole affair was probably aimed to help Kadima win the next election in the other thread for fucks sake. YEAH politically motivated wars! FUCK YEAR ISRAEL ROCKS.
I wouldn't see Michael Bloomberg on the news because we don't give a shit about the Mayor of New York in Australia.
I don't even own a TV!
(why fucking bother when you have the internet?)

Well...I don't know about down there, but there are certainly plenty of "shills" up here. Perhaps you don't know that anyone (Obama/Clinton/McCain etc.) who wants to be president, has to be very careful not to offend Israel or it's partisans in the US. They must go and visit AIPAC & promise undying love for Israel.

It's not enough to say "Jews are good. They have contributed much to the US & the world." Do candidates go to relevant organizations & promise eternal support for Egypt or France, India or Pakistan, Aus, Japan or Canada? No.

Many people have pointed out that many of Obama's picks for various offices have a very strong affinity for Israel.

Do you check Aussie mainstream news? Is it all pro-Israel, without any views from those opposing that of the jingoists? NorAm MSMedia is all about repeating words pleasing to Israel. Just like the majority of politicians do. In Israel there is much more freedom to criticize Israel's policies. In NorAm: you do so with much trepidation if you are a public person.

There are some who say that the greater powers that President Bush accrued to his office are all in place to bring the Boot down if there should be a major attack on US soil. Many would beg for the Boot to allay their fears. Are there not powerful people who'd love an excuse anywhere (including Aus) to do the same?

It is hard to discern foolish fears from real & true dangers. Yet, with the new Federal Powers in the US: it would be a very different place if another 9/11 style attack had happened. There is no denying that some people in high places would have been secretly very glad.

Well...I don't know about down there, but there are certainly plenty of "shills" up here. Perhaps you don't know that anyone (Obama/Clinton/McCain etc.) who wants to be president, has to be very careful not to offend Israel or it's partisans in the US. They must go and visit AIPAC & promise undying love for Israel.

It's not enough to say "Jews are good. They have contributed much to the US & the world." Do candidates go to relevant organizations & promise eternal support for Egypt or France, India or Pakistan, Aus, Japan or Canada? No.

Many people have pointed out that many of Obama's picks for various offices have a very strong affinity for Israel.

Do you check Aussie mainstream news? Is it all pro-Israel, without any views from those opposing that of the jingoists? NorAm MSMedia is all about repeating words pleasing to Israel. Just like the majority of politicians do. In Israel there is much more freedom to criticize Israel's policies. In NorAm: you do so with much trepidation if you are a public person.

There are some who say that the greater powers that President Bush accrued to his office are all in place to bring the Boot down if there should be a major attack on US soil. Many would beg for the Boot to allay their fears. Are there not powerful people who'd love an excuse anywhere (including Aus) to do the same?

It is hard to discern foolish fears from real & true dangers. Yet, with the new Federal Powers in the US: it would be a very different place if another 9/11 style attack had happened. There is no denying that some people in high places would have been secretly very glad.

I'm well aware of the influence of political lobbies in the US.

Secondly, of course I check the MSM, just generally print media as opposed to TV. Generally speaking there's a much clearer ideological spectrum among Australian print media anyway,

SMH/Age, centre left/a little more left

Telegraph/Herald Sun(newscorp), populist and sorta conservative

The Australian(newscorp), neo-liberal-ish, center to center right, at around the center of Australia's political spectrum - right faction Labor party or mainstream Liberal.

There are opposing views here just as there are in the US, are you seriously trying to assert that Fox News and the LA times are presenting the same point of view on this conflict?
Please.

I'm well aware of the influence of political lobbies in the US.

Secondly, of course I check the MSM, just generally print media as opposed to TV. Generally speaking there's a much clearer ideological spectrum among Australian print media anyway,

SMH/Age, centre left/a little more left

Telegraph/Herald Sun(newscorp), populist and sorta conservative

The Australian(newscorp), neo-liberal-ish, center to center right, at around the center of Australia's political spectrum - right faction Labor party or mainstream Liberal.

There are opposing views here just as there are in the US, are you seriously trying to assert that Fox News and the LA times are presenting the same point of view on this conflict?
Please.

I read the LA Times everyday. I don't see much about Israeli treatment of the Palies. War coverage, sure. Firing rockets at Israel, sure. Smuggling into Gaza, sure. The major news chains in Canada: war coverage & Israel's viewpoint. All, "Terrorists are bad!" Like Ham-ass is just crazy & they act for no reason. As if it was just a weird fetish for polishing their rockets & shooting them off.

Can you point to any MSM US sources that point out why Hamas does what it does? What does your media say about why?

For instance: why is the founding of Israel in 1948 a "long time ago & thus ancient history = totally irrelevant in relation to the Palestinians!" but "Oy vey! The Holocaust! The Holocaust! The Holocaust a most terrible tragedy within Living Memory, Never to be Forgotten!"?

I read the LA Times everyday. I don't see much about Israeli treatment of the Palies. War coverage, sure. Firing rockets at Israel, sure. Smuggling into Gaza, sure. The major news chains in Canada: war coverage & Israel's viewpoint. All, "Terrorists are bad!" Like Ham-ass is just crazy & they act for no reason. As if it was just a weird fetish for polishing their rockets & shooting them off.

Can you point to any MSM US sources that point out why Hamas does what it does? What does your media say about why?

For instance: why is the founding of Israel in 1948 a "long time ago & thus ancient history = totally irrelevant in relation to the Palestinians!" but "Oy vey! The Holocaust! The Holocaust! The Holocaust a most terrible tragedy within Living Memory, Never to be Forgotten!"?

I dunno. I only brought up the LA times cause I'd seen this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-marzook6-2009jan06,0,7451769.story

Giving Hamas a voice doesn't strike me as only showing one view.

I despise Hamas, but I still sort of support them in this one because of several reasons:

1) The Israeli targets are on occupied land (mostly, you can't really aim those rockets at anything.) This makes them legitimate targets. The Palestinian targets are NOT on occupied land.

2) The Israeli reaction to these rockets is not proportionate. The targets killed what, five people, and they respond by killing 600, of which 140 are Hamas militants.

3) The military action will positively increase the appeal of militant Palestinian groups

4) There appears to be very little distinction between civilian and military targets in the Israeli attacks, even though their weapons are cutting-edge technology

5) The ceasefire was NOT broken by Hamas, it was broken by the IDF on november fifth, and the first rockets after that time were fired by a group not connected with Hamas.

6) The humanitarian conditions in Gaza are below anything a civilized world can allow. The civilians are not able to leave. Despite this, the attacks continue.

I dunno. I only brought up the LA times cause I'd seen this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-marzook6-2009jan06,0,7451769.story

Giving Hamas a voice doesn't strike me as only showing one view.

Very nice...but it is an opinion piece, no doubt on the editorial pages. Pages that are less read than regular news pages. Besides: it's written by a member of a "terrorist organization", not by a regular reporter who doesn't sport a "funny foreign name". Thus: even fewer people will read it.

"I arrived in Israel 40 years ago. It took me many years to understand that the very existence of my country, as it is today, is based on an ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The project started many years ago. Its seed can be traced to the basic fallacy of the Zionist movement, which set out to establish a Jewish-national state in a location already inhabited by another nation. Under these conditions, one has, at most, a moral right to strive for a bi-national state; establishing a national state implies, more or less by definition, ethnic cleansing of the previous inhabitants.

Albert Einstein grasped this fallacy a long time ago. A short time after WWI "Einstein complained that the Zionists were not doing enough to reach agreement with the Palestinian Arabs…He favored a binational solution in Palestine and warned Chaim Weizmann against `Prussian style` nationalism"[1]"

>>>Have you ever heard the propaganda about "They want to drive us into the sea!"?

" The New York Times quoted Prime Minister Menachem Begin`s (1977 - 83) August, 1982 speech saying: `In June, 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that (President Gamal Abdel) Nasser (1956 - 70) was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

http://www.counterpunch.org/buch01062009.html

The "Six Day War" sure has been mentioned ad nauseum as evidence of "Arab Aggression". Funny that eh? Though...perhaps a PM doesn't get told the truth of what is going on? Just another loser in a suit. What do you think? Just another bum with a name who like Golda Meir or Ben-Gurion were powerless out of touch nobodies, best forgotten?

See...the biggest problem with the techniques of the Nazis: they were used against Jews. Like most Peoples: they only consider these to be bad methods when used on Them, much more acceptable when they are used on others. Ethnic cleansing & theft of property & goods?

Very bad when done to Jews. Not at all bad when done by them. Really though: all Peoples are like that. When they think they can get away with it.

If a man/group was to try today to conquer Aus/Israel/California or any other chunk of land (wouldn't you like to own Cali?) he would be wrong & would deserve everything he & his forces received in retaliation! :mad:

Yet: if he were to succeed? He would write the History & he would Rule & he would be Right. It doesn't mean others (out of his reach, anyways) won't disagree or that there won't be plenty of people who will suck up his propaganda & repeat it as the gospel truth...

"The Great Leader had to bring his Beneficent Rule to poor benighted Australia. Without the GL's Mercy the people here had no hope!

I am proud to serve the GL! My name is Dichromate. (Now will you let my family go?) :eek: :(" :p

Very nice...but it is an opinion piece, no doubt on the editorial pages. Pages that are less read than regular news pages. Besides: it's written by a member of a "terrorist organization", not by a regular reporter who doesn't sport a "funny foreign name". Thus: even fewer people will read it.

"I arrived in Israel 40 years ago. It took me many years to understand that the very existence of my country, as it is today, is based on an ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The project started many years ago. Its seed can be traced to the basic fallacy of the Zionist movement, which set out to establish a Jewish-national state in a location already inhabited by another nation. Under these conditions, one has, at most, a moral right to strive for a bi-national state; establishing a national state implies, more or less by definition, ethnic cleansing of the previous inhabitants.

Albert Einstein grasped this fallacy a long time ago. A short time after WWI "Einstein complained that the Zionists were not doing enough to reach agreement with the Palestinian Arabs…He favored a binational solution in Palestine and warned Chaim Weizmann against `Prussian style` nationalism"[1]"

>>>Have you ever heard the propaganda about "They want to drive us into the sea!"?

" The New York Times quoted Prime Minister Menachem Begin`s (1977 - 83) August, 1982 speech saying: `In June, 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that (President Gamal Abdel) Nasser (1956 - 70) was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

http://www.counterpunch.org/buch01062009.html

The "Six Day War" sure has been mentioned ad nauseum as evidence of "Arab Aggression". Funny that eh? Though...perhaps a PM doesn't get told the truth of what is going on? Just another loser in a suit. What do you think? Just another bum with a name who like Golda Meir or Ben-Gurion were powerless out of touch nobodies, best forgotten?

See...the biggest problem with the techniques of the Nazis: they were used against Jews. Like most Peoples: they only consider these to be bad methods when used on Them, much more acceptable when they are used on others. Ethnic cleansing & theft of property & goods?

Very bad when done to Jews. Not at all bad when done by them. Really though: all Peoples are like that. When they think they can get away with it.

If a man/group was to try today to conquer Aus/Israel/California or any other chunk of land (wouldn't you like to own Cali?) he would be wrong & would deserve everything he & his forces received in retaliation! :mad:

Yet: if he were to succeed? He would write the History & he would Rule & he would be Right. It doesn't mean others (out of his reach, anyways) won't disagree or that there won't be plenty of people who will suck up his propaganda & repeat it as the gospel truth...

"The Great Leader had to bring his Beneficent Rule to poor benighted Australia. Without the GL's Mercy the people here had no hope!

I am proud to serve the GL! My name is Dichromate. (Now will you let my family go?) :eek: :(" :p

You forgot about Egypt closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships (which is ironic given your complaints over the Israeli blockade of Gaza.) Given the agreements that ended previous wars(in which Israel was guaranteed passage) it isn't the worst ever Casus Beli.

And I was under the impression that it was this act that was the main cause of the 1967 war. Secondly, Nasser's rhetoric wasn't exactly pleasant and the entire Israeli defensive doctrine was based on their intelligence capabilities and assumed that they'd be able to make a preemptive strike. This was why they owned Egypts air force to a devastating degree in '67, but also why they got owned early on in the Yom Kippur war a few years later - the second time around their assumption was wrong and while they knew war was a possibility, they and the US weren't willing to preempt based on the 'possibility that Egypt would attack'.

You forgot about Egypt closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships (which is ironic given your complaints over the Israeli blockade of Gaza.) Given the agreements that ended previous wars(in which Israel was guaranteed passage) it isn't the worst ever Casus Beli.

And I was under the impression that it was this act that was the main cause of the 1967 war. Secondly, Nasser's rhetoric wasn't exactly pleasant and the entire Israeli defensive doctrine was based on their intelligence capabilities and assumed that they'd be able to make a preemptive strike. This was why they owned Egypts air force to a devastating degree in '67, but also why they got owned early on in the Yom Kippur war a few years later - the second time around their assumption was wrong and while they knew war was a possibility, they and the US weren't willing to preempt based on the 'possibility that Egypt would attack'.

Do you pride yourself on subject changes & the ability to ignore questions that you don't care to answer? Do you get cranky if your ploy doesn't work?

Palestine FTW here

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11636

Do you pride yourself on subject changes & the ability to ignore questions that you don't care to answer? Do you get cranky if your ploy doesn't work?

You're the one who brought up the six day war, not me. It's also a bit hard to find a point amid the vapid copypasta from counterpunch.
Come up with your own opinions ffs.
So what exactly is it you're trying to say? I can barely tell what you're writing and what you're regurgitating.

At the moment Israel

There's where you went wrong.

- Hamas supports the killers of 2 year old children, Isreali's try to avoid death of civilians.

Here's where you made a complete fool of yourself.

You're the one who brought up the six day war, not me. It's also a bit hard to find a point amid the vapid copypasta from counterpunch.
Come up with your own opinions ffs.
So what exactly is it you're trying to say? I can barely tell what you're writing and what you're regurgitating.

Huh. I take it that I've hit sore points with you & now you're throwing up flack to avoid answering. Cool. You feel guilty about your partisanship, but are sticking with it none the less. What? You feel that it's all a part of War: the lying, the slanted viewpoints, the disingenuous words. The pretending, "Oh! I just can't comprehend what you are saying!" Always a most convenient argument to avoid answering when you don't want to.

You do seem rather the phony.

It's also a bit hard to find a point amid the vapid copypasta from counterpunch.
Come up with your own opinions ffs.

What you're really saying is that counterpunch has copyrighted the truth, and that he should make up something that's not true, so you can attack that instead of the truth.

Neo-fascists never stop surprising me.

What you're really saying is that counterpunch has copyrighted the truth, and that he should make up something that's not true, so you can attack that instead of the truth.

Neo-fascists never stop surprising me.

haha what the fuck?
You guys are nuts.

Huh. I take it that I've hit sore points with you & now you're throwing up flack to avoid answering. Cool. You feel guilty about your partisanship, but are sticking with it none the less. What? You feel that it's all a part of War: the lying, the slanted viewpoints, the disingenuous words. The pretending, "Oh! I just can't comprehend what you are saying!" Always a most convenient argument to avoid answering when you don't want to.

You do seem rather the phony.

Avoid answering? what was the fucking question?
I'm beginning to think you must be trolling
- you want my 'answer'? plainly ask a question.

haha what the fuck?
You guys are nuts.

Look at what you wrote. The meaning is just clarified in my post. What the fuck is wrong about writing the truth, no matter who discovered it first?

Look at what you wrote. The meaning is just clarified in my post. What the fuck is wrong about writing the truth, no matter who discovered it first?

actually I was referring to the 'neo fascist' comment.

Look at what you wrote. The meaning is just clarified in my post. What the fuck is wrong about writing the truth, no matter who discovered it first?

Secondly there's nothing wrong with the truth, but unless it's actually being posted in relation to a pre-existing argument it's simply preaching at thin air.

Perhaps you can explain to me what the hell half of that stuff has to do with ANYTHING. How am I meant to respond to it when there's no thread or logic to it?
Whether it's truth or not is fucking irrelevant.
One moment we're talking about the media, the next he's posting crap about the six day war, then attacking me for responding.

Just a side note, I'm sure you all have been watching the news. If so, I'm sure you have seen this stuff once or twice:
http://www.islandgroup.com/images/white_phosphorous_munition_firing.jpghttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/wp-gaza-2009-image01.jpg

Notice the bright flames and stringy smoke plumes? It is white phosphorus, and it is a chemical weapon.

WP is used for smoke screening and illuminution. However, you don't need flares during the day, and they are most assuredly not for confusing aircraft countermeasures because Hamas has none and aircraft use magnesium flares which do not fragment. Also, the air-burst minimizes any smoke screening since it is so scattered. Red phosphorus is more commonly used for smoke screening anyway, and the smoke of red phosphorus does not cause burns to the skin like white phosphorus smoke.

This is a phosphorus smoke screen:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/wp-Image92.jpg

It looks nothing like what the IDF is dropping on the Palestinians. If you get this stuff on you, it immediately absorbs the moisture in your skin and underlying tissues and dissolves into the fat, burning everything on its way down. The only way for the average civilian to stop the burning is to cover the entire affected area with lots of mud. The phosphorus must be removed immediately before it is metabolized into the body where the person will suffer massive phosphorus poisoning. People who have had burning WP exposure tend to have liver disease for the rest of their lives.

Moreso, the buildings they are firebombing with this stuff are completely impervious to the flames. It's not like burning down Vietnamese thatch villages and the entire forest with it. People who are standing around outside maybe running away from the fighting or who are completely unaware they are about to get bombed; these are the people who will get hit with it. Not fighters which are firing down from the windows of hospitals and schools.

This is a huge reason Israel gets absoutely no respect from me. They did the same thing in Lebanon, including their use of cluster bombings.

Just a side note, I'm sure you all have been watching the news. If so, I'm sure you have seen this stuff once or twice:
http://www.islandgroup.com/images/white_phosphorous_munition_firing.jpghttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/wp-gaza-2009-image01.jpg

Notice the bright flames and stringy smoke plumes? It is white phosphorus, and it is a chemical weapon.

WP is used for smoke screening and illuminution. However, you don't need flares during the day, and they are most assuredly not for confusing aircraft countermeasures because Hamas has none and aircraft use magnesium flares which do not fragment. Also, the air-burst minimizes any smoke screening since it is so scattered. Red phosphorus is more commonly used for smoke screening anyway, and the smoke of red phosphorus does not cause burns to the skin like white phosphorus smoke.

This is a phosphorus smoke screen:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/wp-Image92.jpg

It looks nothing like what the IDF is dropping on the Palestinians. If you get this stuff on you, it immediately absorbs the moisture in your skin and underlying tissues and dissolves into the fat, burning everything on its way down. The only way for the average civilian to stop the burning is to cover the entire affected area with lots of mud. The phosphorus must be removed immediately before it is metabolized into the body where the person will suffer massive phosphorus poisoning. People who have had burning WP exposure tend to have liver disease for the rest of their lives.

Moreso, the buildings they are firebombing with this stuff are completely impervious to the flames. It's not like burning down Vietnamese thatch villages and the entire forest with it. People who are standing around outside maybe running away from the fighting or who are completely unaware they are about to get bombed; these are the people who will get hit with it. Not fighters which are firing down from the windows of hospitals and schools.

This is a huge reason Israel gets absoutely no respect from me. They did the same thing in Lebanon, including their use of cluster bombings.

I guess that puts the Israeli's in the same boat as the Americans, who used WP in Iraq.

God damn. GOD DAMN

Those sick, vile Israeli fucks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814054.stm)

Hamas has some tricks (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200913163956673954.html) up its sleeve, however...

Would it be sick or just par for the course for Dichromate to pleasure himself as he watches people die? All up:

"Ooooh ohhhh! The Bad People are getting it goood! Mmmmm mmm."

Dichromie, have you thought of doing something to help the Israelis really win? Something old & traditional: gatherest thou now all the gold from those that sidest with thou now. Meltest thou then all the gold & pour it into a mold in the shape of a Calf. Whenest the form hast cooled: settest thou now the Golden Calf upon a pedestal & worshipist thou & all who sidest with thou the Golden Calf. ;)

I guess that puts the Israeli's in the same boat as the Americans, who used WP in Iraq.

Quite true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq

Of course, we had used it legitimately for screening and smoking insurgents out of caves and tunnels.

Quite true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq

Of course, we had used it legitimately for screening and smoking insurgents out of caves and tunnels.

I was under the impression it was used for similar purposes to what the Israeli's are using it for in fallujah. I may be wrong but I remember the same people who are outraged now being outraged then as well. (quite legitimately I might say)

Would it be sick or just par for the course for Dichromate to pleasure himself as he watches people die? All up:

"Ooooh ohhhh! The Bad People are getting it goood! Mmmmm mmm."

Dichromie, have you thought of doing something to help the Israelis really win? Something old & traditional: gatherest thou now all the gold from those that sidest with thou now. Meltest thou then all the gold & pour it into a mold in the shape of a Calf. Whenest the form hast cooled: settest thou now the Golden Calf upon a pedestal & worshipist thou & all who sidest with thou the Golden Calf. ;)

There's not much point in interacting with you further when all you do is post crap like this.

I was under the impression it was used for similar purposes to what the Israeli's are using it for in fallujah. I may be wrong but I remember the same people who are outraged now being outraged then as well. (quite legitimately I might say)

This is true. It is technically legal to use as an incendiary weapon. It is sad that it is not illegal since it causes poisoning when you are exposed to it. When you get napalm on you, you get burned. When you get burning phosphorous on you, you get burned and then you get phosphorous poisoning. We have poison gasses, and those are called chemical weapons. What's worse is that these chemical weapons are being used in civilian areas. It is quite different between using it on enemy soldiers on a God-forsaken battlefield and using it on enemy soldiers dispersed among civilians. But Zion doesn't give a shit; the Palestinians and every other non-Jew is of an inferior race.

The Ottomans ruled "Palestine" for almost 500 years and had a somewhat productive religious tolerance model. The Ottoman empire dissolves and the British, who decidedly did not, come in and set up a mandate.

The UN sets up a partition plan, which the Zionists approved and the Arabs rejected.

The Arabs go to war with Israel. And lose.

The 1948 war expanded Israel's borders beyond the UN partition lines.

Skip forward in time to 1967.

The Six-Day War further expanded Israel's borders, trapping the Arab refugees from 1948 within them.

Thus we now have "Palestine" and a "Palestinian people."

It's worth nothing that if the Arabs had approved the UN partition, Israel would have been much smaller and weaker, and they could have invaded it later on and re-taken it. Instead, they rejected diplomacy and immediately started a war which enlarged the Jewish state, making it even more difficult to take in 1967.

The Arabs righteously lost any claim to the land of Israel through legitimate means - in this case, diplomacy and warfare.

Any diplomatic claim is laughable. You don't create nations simply because there are war refugees and no, the Jews don't qualify as war refugees. They were not a product of war, but a casualty of it.

I can see why the Arab world wants to "liberate" "Palestine," though. Its very existence is an ironic symbol of the Arab world's multiple failures to seize Israel by force.

This is true. It is technically legal to use as an incendiary weapon. It is sad that it is not illegal since it causes poisoning when you are exposed to it. When you get napalm on you, you get burned. When you get burning phosphorous on you, you get burned and then you get phosphorous poisoning. We have poison gasses, and those are called chemical weapons. What's worse is that these chemical weapons are being used in civilian areas. It is quite different between using it on enemy soldiers on a God-forsaken battlefield and using it on enemy soldiers dispersed among civilians. But Zion doesn't give a shit; the Palestinians and every other non-Jew is of an inferior race.

It isn't like there's that much of a distinction in the minds of governments between civilians and military anyway apart from publicity consequences. It’s just a show.

Case in point, hollow point rifle rounds have been banned from military use for over one hundred years because of damage they inflict. There's not a whole lot you can do to treat the results compared those of ‘normal’ ammunition.
Yet hollow points are used by governments against their own populations all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet#Legality

I get the ricochet issue, but it’s still inherently fucked up that weapons we wouldn’t use against soldiers are used regularly used against civilians.

It isn't like there's that much of a distinction in the minds of governments between civilians and military anyway apart from publicity consequences. It’s just a show.

Case in point, hollow point rifle rounds have been banned from military use for over one hundred years because of damage they inflict. There's not a whole lot you can do to treat the results compared those of ‘normal’ ammunition.
Yet hollow points are used by governments against their own populations all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet#Legality

I get the ricochet issue, but it’s still inherently fucked up that weapons we wouldn’t use against soldiers are used regularly used against civilians.

Interestingly enough, 5.56 NATO is specifically designed to violently fragment inside the body which results in far more severe wounds than does hollow point ammunition, and it has been standard issue for decades.

I can understand why police forces would use hollow points since they are less armored and fight at close range mostly for self defense. But when you are shooting at some shmuck on a battlefield for a cause neither one of you might believe in it's better to lightly wound him and get him off the battlefield than to inoperably wound him. We don't go around burning entire villages, raping and pillaging as we go anymore. We moved beyond that, and we moved beyond the necessity to kill the other sumbitch dead when we can still get him out of the way and save his life in the process.

Interestingly enough, 5.56 NATO is specifically designed to violently fragment inside the body which results in far more severe wounds than does hollow point ammunition, and it has been standard issue for decades.

I can understand why police forces would use hollow points since they are less armored and fight at close range mostly for self defense. But when you are shooting at some shmuck on a battlefield for a cause neither one of you might believe in it's better to lightly wound him and get him off the battlefield than to inoperably wound him. We don't go around burning entire villages, raping and pillaging as we go anymore. We moved beyond that, and we moved beyond the necessity to kill the other sumbitch dead when we can still get him out of the way and save his life in the process.

Maybe you'd know this, because I can't remember where I heard about it and have no idea where to look.
- apparently during the Falklands war British troops had problems with their ammunition passing straight through Argentinian soldiers without actually disabling them properly (wounded enemy being as dangerous as an able one being the problem).
Would you happen to know what they were using then, or if that's true? I'm not enough of a gun enthusiast (it's been a little hard to be one here since 1996) to know a whole lot.

Maybe you'd know this, because I can't remember where I heard about it and have no idea where to look.
- apparently during the Falklands war British troops had problems with their ammunition passing straight through Argentinian soldiers without actually disabling them properly (wounded enemy being as dangerous as an able one being the problem).
Would you happen to know what they were using then, or if that's true? I'm not enough of a gun enthusiast (it's been a little hard to be one here since 1996) to know a whole lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_the_Falklands_War#British

The main battle rifle was the FN FAL which fires 7.62x51mm (NATO catridge). This is a pretty high powered round. All of the 7.62's that I know of are hard ball ammunition that does not fragment at all, just tumbles slightly. I have no doubt that 7.62 NATO would have absolutely no trouble going straight through a man. It is great for piercing through cover though, which 5.56 NATO can't do very well.

Another aspect you have to recall is that since the bullet passed so easilly through the person not much energy was transferred, thus he is only slightly wounded and doesn't feel much. A 7.62x39mm (your run-of-the-mill AK-47 round) will tumble a bit inside of a person, but a higher powered round such as 7.62x51mm and 7.62x54mm will pass through so quickly it doesn't have much time to tumble, unless it hit something along the way like cover or thick kevlar.