Europe more dangerouse than USA? (gunshots vs terror threat)

a little study about what an army is and what war is meant to accomplish is in order here

no matter who the enemy is, to end hostilities you have to negotiate

when fdr made his off the cuff comment about unconditional surrender nobody knew what he meant and when japan surrendered there were negotiations in that the office of the emperor wouldn't be touched

vilifying your enemy no matter how much they may deserve it doesn't bring peace

eventually in afghanastan we will have to negotiate with the taliban

so sitting here and moralizing about the palistinians will accomplish what?

and no having studied up on the history of the area each side has a claim

isreal began as terrorists, can anybody say king david hotel

the history of the region didn't begin with the latest round of violence

in todays haaretz

One law, for Palestinian and Jewish terrorists alike
The ongoing damage to the olive groves and disruption of the harvesters' work harm the livelihood of thousands of Palestinian families. A state that respects the rule of law cannot abandon them to extremists whose goal is to dispossess their neighbors of their lands.

Haaretz Editorial


The start of the annual olive harvest has been the signal for an onslaught of violence against Palestinian farmers by groups of settler thugs in recent years. Over the last few days, human rights activists - who, as they do every year, have mobilized to protect the harvesters and deter the criminals - have reported countless incidents: torched groves, chopped-down trees, stolen olives, vandalized tools and even physical attacks on farmers. These incidents join a long list of crimes, including torched mosques and vandalized gravestones, euphemistically known as "price tag operations." There have also been a few reports of settlers' groves being vandalized.

Four years ago, the High Court of Justice noted that the military commander of the territories and his agents - Israel Defense Forces soldiers, border policemen and regular policemen - are obligated to ensure the safety of Palestinian farmers both en route to their fields and while they are working there. Specifically, the justices said, the military commander must allocate forces to protect the farmers' property. The court rejected the army's tactic of declaring certain areas closed military zones in order to protect the Palestinians from settler violence. Nevertheless, the IDF restricts the harvesters to certain hours, saying it lacks sufficient forces to offer full-time protection.


The police have also proven impotent in enforcing the law against Jewish hoodlums. Statistics compiled by the Yesh Din organization show that more than 90 percent of investigations opened by the police's Shai (West Bank ) unit into crimes by Jews against Palestinians have been closed on pretexts such as "insufficient evidence" or "perpetrator unknown." The lesson for the criminals is that they can continue running wild without let or hindrance, and with no fear of the law.

The ongoing damage to the olive groves and disruption of the harvesters' work harm the livelihood of thousands of Palestinian families. A state that respects the rule of law cannot abandon them to extremists whose goal is to dispossess their neighbors of their lands.

The government, starting from the very top, must make it clear to the security forces that as long as Israel controls the West Bank, it is responsible for the welfare of all the area's inhabitants - and that there must be only one law, for Palestinian and Jewish terrorists alike.

 

In other words, you still refuse to admit that Palestinians blowing up Israeli civilians is contemptible. Instead, you keep changing the subject to how despicable Israelis are, as though it excuses what the Palestinians are doing.

And you claim to be 'neutral'? I hope you're never a referee in any game I'm playing....

By the way, the King David Hotel wasn't a random civilian target; it was being used as a major British military headquarters. And the Irgun telephoned multiple warnings before the bombing, which should have given plenty of time to evacuate the hotel. No one seriously denies that.

There are two common explanations as to why the hotel wasn't evacuated: either the warnings weren't passed on to someone with sufficient authority to order an evacuation; or the British disregarded the warnings, because they believed their security was so tight a bomb couldn't have been planted. I can believe either; military minds are sometimes rather rigid.

Begin claimed in his memoirs that the British deliberately allowed the casualties so they could vilify the Jewish militants. I doubt that, and hope it isn't true.

Now, compare that bombing with the typical Palestinian suicide bombing, where the targets are generally groups of civilians, and no warning at all is given -- because the whole idea is to kill or maim as many civilians as possible.

It's either rather ignorant of you to compare Palestinian suicide bombers to the King David Hotel bombing, or rather cynical of you. Or I suppose it could just mean that you honestly don't have any moral standards.....

 

Now you are confusing yourself with your own moralising. Just a post before you yourself said

"I think some killings are justified, unavoidable or at least explainable"

More self-inflicted confusion. You say there are two, and then shoot yourself down with the third from Begin. And I can come up with a couple more.

Given the number of civilians on Palestinian side, your moralisation screams foul. Since when, give me several examples, do the izraelis ringing Palestinians to advise of impending attack to "please leave, so that we can bomb"?

You are definitely confused. Morals is a bad thing. Morals are a blanket solution for random problems, Like forrest gump's Afghanistan and Iraq criminal actions. he said he was in Iraq because they ried to kill his papa.

That's morals.

Ethics on the other hand are RANDOM solutions for random problems.

Ethics are generally a good thing. They measure how much one is a good person. the better the solution, the better a person.

Morals are bad thing invented by bad people to justify their bad actions by lying through their stupid nazist eyes.

Much like majority of criminals serving as dictators of the usa.

And of course all those subservient losers with long wet tongues only too happy to lick the **** off usanian white arses as a prize for their faithful subservience.

 

violence is contemptible on both sides but you're laying it all on one side and excusing the other

like i said the major issue for isreal is demographics, water and lebensraum, i really don't know how to say it any other way

look into what happens with the settlements under the natural growth doctrine

then look at a map of the settlements and the exclusive roads and it's hard not to see Bantustans

to go from one area to another the palistinians have to go through check points which makes a journey of a few minutes take hours

fact "The State of Israel had population of approximately 7,503,800 inhabitants as of December 2009.[1] 75.4% of them were Jewish (about 5,660,700 individuals), 20.3% were Arabs (About 1,523,900 inhabitants), while the remaining 4.3% (about 319,200 individuals) were defined as "others" (family members of Jewish immigrants who were not registered at the Interior Ministry as Jews, non-Arab Christians, non-Arab Muslims and residents who do not have a religious classification). (75.4% Ethnic Israelites, 15% Shamis, 2.5% Native Syrians, 2.2% Arabs, 1.3% Druzes, 4.3% Others)"

add to this the occupied territories of 3.3 million arabs and it's not hard to see a demographic time bomb

a large fraction of arabs are under 25-30

instead of playing the blame game , everybody should be looking for a solution

just for a political reference there are more moslems than jews in this country and if they ever get organized as well as american jews it's not hard to imagine the political climate shifting somewhat in this country with our political whores

 

Here's one for you. NATO Occupation of Serbia to "defend" Kosovo ended in a disaster for the NATO, who were effectively defeated by Serbs.

That is why the serbian generals walked out laughing from the first round of negotiations with the NATO. Until recently there was a video and an article on Russian RTV agency site where it was shown clearly Serbian generals leaving laughing and one was saying to a journalist something, from memory, We repelled the invader, humiliated them internationally and they want US to sign the defeat papers!!! Crazy foreigners!!"

Then the Internatoinal Court in Den Haag rang Milosevic and promised him immunity from prosecution, if they sign the declaration of cessation of the war and accept that they had lost the war. Milosevic, stupid as he was, believed it all and forced his generals to sign.

That is also why he was later so freely given to the Court by Serbia, when the court asked for him. Serves him right fro signing the defeat, when he won.

Milosevic was to produce the evidence, as serbian Secret Services have recorded every phone call ever, but he died during his trial. He was also going to call Clinton as a witness, which scared the **** out of that scumbag. The video of him visibly scared and disturbed, denying to the journalist any involvement or knowledge, is still on youtube.

So, there you go.

 

Oh, and a Bosnian war is another example. Serbs won that war too, but it took the international law, as interpreted by capitalist swines in the usa and Europe, to turn it around and keep Bosnia together, when it would have been much better to allow it to dissapear into the neighbouring countries. As is, Bosnia currently is a country that will either live forever under the international protectorate, or dissolve and blend into the neighbourhood.

And just do not forget that for as long as it is a foreign protectorate, Al Qhaeda is brewing and blossoming there like there's no tomorrow. Madrid bombing was done by bosnian muslims (arabs with bosnian passports), there is a connection (dynamite provision) with London, and the lates paranoia, which resulted in this thread, about "unsafe" Europe because of France and Germany being targets (nothing happened by the way, which clearly shows that usanian government is just a nazist shithole), well the muslim extremists apparently targeting the two countries, are arabs with bosnian passport.

And who created Bosnia? NATO, usa and european capitalist swines.

There you go. International "law" can decide an outcome of a war. It did it twice already. At least.

 

I'm on fire, all thanks to your lack of knowledge.

Cyprus is another example. International law created status quo, leaving it to the future generations to find a common solution. The problem is that the western capitalist swines do not understand the power of the hatred.

Haven't you seen the video on the youtube where Bagdatis himself (famous tennis player from Cyprus) is singing and dancing with his mates, burning turkish cyprus flag and singing about final death and extermination of all turkies from Cyprus?

You need to read more my old friend. The time is running you over.

 

mas, i'm not rich enough to be a capitalist swine, so i guess that just makes me a swine

 

Troy, you are never going to convince them. I certainly give up. One even said something to the effect that the Japanese were kicking our ***! Of course, the Japanese were crushed and we were about to apply the coup de grace, either by invasion or with those bombs. The only argument about morality that could POSSIBLY be made about that is about whether one bomb would have been sufficient. We can never know if the Japanese would have stopped after one (and indications were that they would not), therefore I am wont to err on the side against the aggressor (My father was on a troop transport ship on his way to Japan for the invasion when the bombs were dropped - I am particularly happy to have him survive) and who knows how many lives were saved with those bombs (Particularly on the side of the Japanese because we had crushed their navy and had near free rein over the airspace, and the people would have dug in and fought tooth and nail on their home soil.) Ugly yes, but how can you argue common sense with someone that thinks those bombs didn't save lives on both sides? That is almost as idiotic as suggesting that the Jews are terrorists in the struggles with the Palistinians - It's laughable! The Jews walk on egg shells for world opinion. I personally don't give a **** anymore and wish they, and we, would just kick some ***. Speaking of that, notice how "peace and love" Obama, once the facts of life were explained to him in office, is a bloodthirsty, drone usin' hawk? Doesn't that tell the drones (in the other sense!) that there is more to it than what they know? No, they'll still protest war and dream that Obama is just winding up the mess Bush started. What about when this is still going on twenty years from now - will it STILL be Bush's fault? Idiots.
I think I'm starting to hope for a conflict with Chile. Would one troop do it or should we just be sure with two (Girl scouts, I mean)?

 

Wardd, are you admitting to be a part of the government?

: )

I only have it with the government, not with the people.

 

an argument can be made that the bombs saved lives on both sides

 

then i'm only a piglet

 

That would be unfair war. And a reflection of your own personal cowardice.

You would send children to wage your own personal war.

Soooo usanian nazist capitalist swine-type ideology.

Truth be told, given the impotence of your soldiers, with all the gizmos to make them fight and win, to win any war how many soldiers would Chile need?

None. Just an unarmed border security officer to tell you "go away", and you'd be all running back home calling for your mamis, crying like real girls that you are.

Ours is bigger.

 

No problems. I'm a vegetarian anyway, so you are safe my freind.

 

I said some killings are justified, unavoidable or explainable. I didn't say all killings are.

I didn't say there are only two explanations; I said there are two common explanations.

Anyone who condems the Israelis for everything they do, and refuses to condemn Palestinians for committing out and out mass murder, is a hypocrite and a partisan cheerleader. Anyone who defends sending suicide bombers to kill civilians is defending terrorism -- whether we're talking about Palestinians killing Jews in Israel, or Al Queda blowing up mosques full of Sufi Muslims in Pakistan.

No, Bush never said that. A lot of other people thought it and said it, and it may be true. But Bush never said it.

You're playing ******** word games. I'm not going to join in and play them with you; keep playing with yourself.

Much like majority of criminals serving as dictators of the usa.

You're as stupidly one-sided and full of hate as Mark775 is; you're just coming from a different direction. Although come to think of it, Mark does save most of his hatred for fellow Americans... maybe we should just lock the two of you in a room together, and throw away the key.