Exactly. A dead baby doesn't make one side automatically the bad guys. Bleeding hearts really need to stay out of these discussions.
Oh, so it's not that there are dead babies, it's which side has killed less that makes them the good guys? Gotcha.
your sick you know that. its not which side kills less babies that makes them the good guys its the expression of right to self defense and to protect ones territory that makes that. hamas would prefer not to kill anyone however anu restince group has the right to resist the occupation and conquest of their homeland yes even against jews. and my post wasn't labeling anyone as good or bad which if you reread it you probably see. it was pointing out the rank hypocrisy of complaining about the deaths of children and saying hamas doesn't care when children are a higher percentage of palestinian death toll than for Israel and palestinian children are the overwhelming majority of children deaths 88% to 12% not that you probably care because in this thread you've already shown what you think of questioning the ISraeli and zionist line.
Israel has better weapons. Too damn bad. The operative phrase in your statement is "to my knowledge". I think we are in agreement there.
yeah to bad its always the muderous thugs who always have the better weapons true as a non zionist I'm probably a lot better informed than you are. we all know your views on the abuses of power which is fuck the weak they should have more powerful but guess what we live in a era of law. and all your precious Israeli "civilians" in occupied territory aren't protected by article 27 of the fourth geneva convention. this isn't my view by the way this is the view of the international red cross which states that creating settlements in occupied territory like serdot aren't protected.
You say that, yet you hold up perceived infant civilian body counts as evidence that one side is "better" than the other. I don't know who you're trying to kid, but you're not doing it successfully. Again, you hold up numbers as evidence. Your case is, essentially, because Israel has killed more babies, they are worse. And if we're going to talk about what either of us has already shown, let's go back to your ridiculous post in which you questioned the validity of the video posted in which Palestinians were sending their children to harass Israeli soldiers and in the same breath defending the act as being done for a righteous cause. You're a hypocrite, and a dishonest one at that. I've never said I support Israel, I simply pointed out how disgusting it is for Palestinians to use their children in war, and how absurd it is to say one side is better than the other because they've killed less children.
By your definition even Tel Aviv isn't protected by the Geneva Conventions, so I don't know why you bothered mentioning Hamas' track record there.
actually by the definition I was using in my argument it was protected. even most pro law(aka pro palestinian) are willing to concede that the areas in the partitian plan are legally Israeli territory( though some like me disagree for various reason mine involve the montevideo convention) but hey why should you start being honest about my beliefs know. hey why your why don't you accuse me of being anti semitic while repeating nazi propaganda. My viewpoint was any of the places out side of that is legally occupied territory and civilians moved into such areas like aren't protected by article 27 of the 4th geneva convention due to the the violation of article 49 of the fourth geneva conventions also as a violation of article 49 ITS A WAR CRIME. its based on the response to the nazis policies of germanization not that you'd probably care about that considering jews weren't the victim there.
I did no such thing. I'm sorry you think your fucking god but you do not get to fucking tell me what my intentions, mine motives or my beliefs are. I told you what my intentions were you do not get to tell me I'm wrong. Funny how I accurately say your defending ISrael's crimes and you get huffy while I point out spiders hypocrisy and you accuse me of saying the palestinians are better. sorry but you don't get to misrepresent my post and than claim yours are being misrepresented when being called on it. again I never questioned the validity of it. I question the integrity of the IDF. this is the second time you have lied about my beliefs and views on that video do not do it again. I'm sorry if it wets your panties to troll but I know my beliefs you don't do not to presume to lecture me on things you not only know nothing about clearly have no intention of knowing about so you can dishonestly attack me.
You absolutely did. Because only someone who thinks they're God could possibly disagree with you? That's one helluva ego you got on you, pal. I admit, your awful spelling and grammar sometimes makes it difficult to glean your meaning, as does your tendency to contradict yourself, which is why I originally asked you whether you were covering your bases or simply couldn't make up your mind. Your subsequent posts have answered that question indirectly, so let's stop pretending you're some inscrutable enigma. Sure I do, when you lie so blatantly as you have here. Oh really? Show me where I defended anything Israel did. By all means. That's exactly what you did. Need I show you again? Okay, fine: So not only did you say the Palestinians are in the right, but you defended their use of children to harass Israeli soldiers. Neither of those things happened on my end. The only person behaving dishonestly is you, chief. [quoteagain I never questioned the validity of it.[/quote] Um, yes you did: Did you forget that your posts don't just disappear? It's still there for all to see. Is that a threat? Boy, you sure react immaturely to having your card pulled.
And for Israel, dead Palestinian babies mean less enemies in the future. Doesn't it? Isn't that how it goes? You see, extremism exists on both sides of the fence. Unfortunately one is forgiven and excused while the other gets bombed and their children murdered. So bonus for both. Of course, much better to gleefully gloating about it I guess. Right.. Because those babies were out there doing.. what exactly? And both sides use children in war. Israel gets the school children in Israel to sign bombs with messages of love.. You have to wonder, if the shells that killed the children in this latest conflict was signed 'with love' from a small child? Both sides are trigger happy buffoons.
No, but gleefully gloating about it isn't much worse than pretending that one side is somehow the only one doing it. I'm sorry, I honestly can't tell in which way you're trying to misrepresent my point here. Clarification, please? I agree. My point wasn't to defend one against the other.
Didn't Hamas sponsor all those bus attacks that killed Israeli noncombatants? There's also this, more recently: Gaza is under Hamas control. Edit: Hamas did indeed have a go at Israel schoolchildren before: There are others. You really had no knowledge of these?
under international law those are considered occupied territory. Israel moved its civilians into those areas and the international red cross none the less has stated civilians moved into occupied territory aren't protected under article 27 of the geneva conventions and that doing so is a war crime.
never said it was ok to kill them just said the legal protections don't apply to them. so its hypocritical to want international law applied fairly and according to all statutes? if Israel doesn't want them attacked perhaps they shouldn't illegally move them into occupied territory. again the international red cross holds those moving its civilians into occupied territory as bearing the responsibility for what happens to them. again all of those happened under territroy that according to international law is occupied. I know you much rather argue in ignorance and against accorded fact but your wishes do not change the fact that hamas hasn't attacked protected people. should they have attacked all of those people no but that doesn't change the legality of those actions in relation to the fourth geneva convention
bull fucking shit. you can't accuse me of doing this while your not and defending an orginzation that has a reputation of using violance against unarmed protestors.
In my admittedly brief perusal of the Fourth Convention, I don't recall that civilians transported or allowed to move into occupied territories are bereft of protection under the Fourth Convention. They might well be illegal, but then again if a family follows a man breaking into my house and sets up on my lawn, I'm fairly sure they're subject to protection under common law. I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to take potshots at them, for instance. Also, your refrain doesn't remotely excuse attacks on civilians by Hamas within Israel proper. If Geneva legal protections don't apply, I guess they'll just have to look to other defense. Right? I love how you insist on sliding in these ad hominem attacks while changing goal posts. First it was civilians - - and now it's a refrain to the Geneva Conventions. Which is the point you're trying to make, that Hamas is more moral because they care more about dead Jewish babies, or that Hamas is more moral, because they don't care about dead Jewish babies that have no legal standing as defined by your reading of the Fourth Geneva Convention? In any event, I would certainly agree, in light of my links and the past, that Hamas is indeed far more 'concerned' with the civilian deaths it causes, so to speak. Which is to say frankly that Hamas is more 'concerned' in that they directly try to kill civilians, outright. I hope that was clear. :shrug: An invaded country will establish a buffer zone; the USSR did the same. Why do you agree with group defense on the one hand (Hamas lobbing rockets at Israeli kids) and not the other (Israel blowing the hell out of Hamas leaders/terrorists and their associates and family members)?
