The story of four young wankers getting off on macho posturing and the joys of being in a gang. Greatest achievement to date: putting up fly-posters.
Not representative of the religion. Not even representative of terrorists.
http://israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=61711
It seems it’s even worse than I imagined last night. In my naivety I had though the terrorists at least didn’t know who were in that car – that not even Palestinian terrorists could stoop to such depth of depravity and purposefully kill pregnant women and small children. But shooting each child repeatedly at point-blank range is just one of the most disgusting thing I’ve ever read. On the other hand that Palestinians take to the street to celebrate the murder of children is nothing that surprise me anymore; this has become a common enough sight. They did so when Iraq invaded Kuwait. They did so when terrorists flew into the Twin Towers.
buttonjockey308
>As Zoe’s link pointed out, Israel is not innocent of wrongdoing either.
Nobody is innocent of wrongdoings. This does not mean we’re not able to condemn those acts, which are so evil and reprehensible as to be quite beyond normal conduct; as killing of a pregnant mother and her children is. And purposefully going up to small children and repeatedly shoot them several times is a quite a different cup of tea than accidentally hitting civilians (when trying to eliminate terrorists that tomorrow and by their own admission may be behind such terrorists acts)
That there are those in Israel that speak out against current Israeli policy is not a sign of bankrupt Israeli morals or political degeneration, quite the reverse it is a sign of a working Israeli democracy. I would have more respect for the Palestinians if I could find likewise dissident Palestinians from within the Palestinians areas. Where are the Palestinians Hakkak? The Palestinians refuseniks? The Palestinian peace demonstration, protesting against the evil terrorists killings? Alas! All we seem to have is Arafat’s weak critique muttered while simultaneous condoning terror and trying to use it as bargaining chip. Oh and I see that Arafat’s very own terrorists organisation Fatah, not one to be kept out of such a glorious attack, is now also in the holy Islamic choir clamouring for a piece of the cake and want to be recognised as being behind. Arafat is a disgusting terrorist leader without a scrap of moral right, and neither is this the first time in recent time that he has been directly involved in terror - kill him and be done with it.
There are non-traditional policies, and then there are vile, wretched policies - such as purposely murdering children and civilians. I really do hope you know the difference between the two and see how different they are. Israel declares all out war on the region of Palestine and the surrounding Arab neighbors (and I imagine at least one European country) declare war on Israel. While many would love for this to happen, it isn’t in the interest of Israel’s safety. Israel’s struggle to defend itself becomes pointless.
You want a document everyone can agree upon? To hell with the world courts. If they don’t aknowledge the leader(s) of Palestine’s involvement in purposely murdering civilians, then Israel’s military has to take matters into their own hands. For what they could do, but haven’t, I commend them. Have you read what was in that link yet? I apologize if you haven’t, but there is a difference between both policies, and for others not to see it is either ignorance or “scummy” character.
So how many does it take to take it seriously? As much as I’d love to get these 4 alone, I guess I have to grudgingly respect the fact they put their names into the public domain. At least they have the balls or lack of sense to say it in public. But how many other Londoners feel the same and stay as quiet as Mohammed Atta?
Point is, they beleive in this. Hardcore. Ignore it if you will, but there are some in the US, Phillippines, Thailand, India, Russia, former Yugoslavia, and more that may want to debate.
Go me.
The palestinian terrorists are scum. Israel leaders are also scum.
Call me naive but I think we have a problem when there is more things in common than differences between terrorists and the elected officials of a democratic state.
That being said, considering this is the pit, and taking in consideration the victims of this latest show of human madness, You don’t shoot at a pregnant woman, nor at her children you fucking excuse of an insect. (sorry my language skills only take me that far)… wait… I could try in spanish **La puta madre que te recontra re mil pario hijo de la grandisima puta, ¿quien carajo te crees que sos pelotudo? **
No, it’s useless I can’t put it into words.
Dead children are dead. Means nothing to them whether someone deliberately murdered them or ‘accidently’ murdered them while firing missiles into civilian areas. As I’ve made clear above, I’ve no interest in deabting whether one murdering amoral motherfucker is worse than another murdering amoral motherfucker.
And now we have reached the point where a government is to be praised for their restraint in not commiting genocide. A true sign of progress.
There are lots of links here, you will need to clarify which. As to the difference between policies, it is really not relevent. I condemn the Palestianian militants for their actions and the Israeli militants for their actions. The one has no bearing on the other.
Serious question for you. Do you really think that you couldn’t find idiots with bigmouth ideas like this in any country or any religion. How many Americans supported obliterating Fallujah in bar conversations after the contractors were killed there?
The Likud referendum just got defeated, so it seems like the attack was successful.
You’ll need a cite that the vote was going to be in favour for this argument to stand a chance of floating. You won’t find one…
No, that was in conjunction with the next sentence. The point is that there is a difference between one who purposely takes the life a child and one who doesn’t. You don’t see the difference within the context of the conflict. So be it.
It’s called cause and effect, and it has a bearing on everything. Arab-Israeli conflicts.
If you haven’t read them yet, please look at the posts not addressed to you.
Necro Romancer , yes I read that link. As it is about Palestinian atrocities against Israel, and I have already condemned the Palestinian militants as ‘murdering scum’, I fail to see why you are directing me to it again.
You argument seems to be that I should assign some lower level of scumness to the Israeli militants, as their murders are of a lower level of ‘evilness’ than those of the Palestinian militants. I already told you that I judge each person by their own actions, not those of anyone else, and that once you reach the ‘murdering scum’ level, no further distinctions are really needed (is the person who murders 100 children worse than the person who murders 10?).
I am sure that we could if we wanted, and as you seem to want to do, sit down and rank each indivdual person involved in the conflict, so we have a table with the most evil scum at the top and lesser scum at the bottom, but I really fail to see what we would achieve.
…have a BBC report…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3679395.stm
…tell me, what is not impartial about that report? Don’t you realize that as time goes on, headlines change? That maybe when the Helicopters fired into Gaza-it was reported as the headline because it had just happened?
Yeah, but Islam is blatently not a religion of peace. No religion can take that label. Religions are programs of indoctrination designed to control the sheep-like masses by allowing them to quell their innate, pissing fear of death with irrational hopes of eternal paradise. Islam and Christianity preach the doctrine of eternal damnation for earthly sins and are therefore, at their most fundamental core, sickeningly brutal.
Anyway, back to the Koran. Take the first verse of The Opening
And verse 37 in The Cow
And contrast these sentiments with Allah’s actions:
Verse 9 and 10 of The Cow
In other words, don’t bother warning disbelievers, Allah has blinded them, sealing their fate. They were born to rot in hell. How tolerant.
But wait, there’s more! Book 4, women, verse 56
Note the grotesquely ironic juxtaposition of the last two sentences of that verse.
Book seven, The Heights, verse 50
Again, Allah, the relenting, the merciful, is proven to be anything but. His actions speak louder than the ungrounded lip service paid to his benevolence.
Now, I could go on like that all day. There are a great many more examples of Allah’s intolerance and brutality but those are, I believe, the choicest. That verse from ‘Women’ is especially priceless.
However, any weasely apologist could explain that away by arguing that the actions of Allah towards unbelievers serve some greater utilitarian good by clearly and unambiguously stating that the path to salvation is through Allah and only through Allah.
That doesn’t, however, explain Allah’s attitude towards homosexuals which, although at this point it hardly needs to be said, is as far removed from benevolence and mercy as it is possible to be.
From book 27, The Ant.
Male homosexuals commit “abominations” and act “senselessly” and, when they refuse to compromise themselves they are subjected to a “Dreadful rain”.
Way to win the pink vote Allah, :rolleyes:
As we all know, homosexuality isn’t a choice. Homosexual acts are but no reasonable modern person would expect a gay man to stay celibate his entire life to satisfy the capricious whims of an unbalanced deity.
Homosexuality isn’t a choice. Gay men who commmit homosexual acts are satisfying desires they can’t help feeling. Hence, gay men are built to commit acts which Allah would deem abominable. Hence, gay men are abominable by nature, in the eyes of the benevolent and tolerant Allah. QED.
Any deity which claims to be benevolent and merciful, yet arbitrarily chooses to put 4% of the human population on the fast track to hell, is at best insane and at worst a a flagrant bullshitter paying lip service to his own benevolence.
Now on to the matters that concerns all of us most here today. Does the Koran sanction violence if the violence can be argued to perpetuate the will of Allah? Does Islam encourage vigilantism and bloody jihad? That would surely be the final nail in the coffin of those who insist, in spite of all the textual evidence to the contrary (and let us not forget that Muslims believe that the Koran is the precise word of Allah, dictated to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel), that Islam is a Religion of Peace.
The bad news for those people is that, yes, the Koran does sanction vigilantism, violent jihad of the dynamite overcoat variety and religious war.
Of course, the Koran advocates violence only defence of Islam. However, in the eyes of many Muslims (such as a statistically significant proportion of those in Palestine), the infidels are at the gates. Given their belief that they are in a state of war, the Koran provides moral justification for their actions.
Take, for example, verse 12 of book 8, ‘The Spoils of War’
Or from book 5, the Table, verse 33.
And, perhaps most telling,
Of course, verse 38 is a pretty hefty qualifier for verse 39 and sounds very reasonable, but what if the “persecutors” are not persecuting but are instead fighting for their very right to exist, as Israel are? In that instance, verse 38 allows jihadists to attack knowing that the “persecutors” will not cease their “persecution”. Verse 38 is an ingenious moral sanction for violent jihad.
There are, in total, nearly 100 verses in the Koran which follow these same lines. I trust that what I’ve quoted thus far is sufficient, however.
Now, lest anyone misinterpret me, let me clearly point out what I’m not saying.
I’m not saying Muslims are violent by nature.
I’m not saying that Islam is somehow inferior to Christianity. I feel that all organised religions are equally worthless.
Most importantly, I’m not saying that Muslims cannot use the positive tenets of the Koran (and there are a reasonable amount of them) as a guide to live a virtuous life.
Having said that, however, I do feel that in order to use the Koran to live a virtuous life, one needs to blank out quite a lot of the bad stuff, and there is a lot of deeply repugnant shit in the Koran. My final question to you is, how much of Islam’s most central, most sacred text, can a Muslim afford to ignore and still call himself a Muslim? It’s a tricky one and one that’s open to interpretation. One thing is for sure, however, if we take an open and unbiased look at the Koran from start to finish, there is enough bigotry, brutality and intolerance in its pages to rigorously contest the notion that Islam is, fundamentally, a Religion of Peace.
Do you think it would matter to dead kids if they had been run over by an ambulance and not murdered deliberately? I don’t know what my point is, really, but of course it doesn’t matter to the dead how they die.
Yes, the Palestinian freedom fighters are targetting civilians. If they had tanks, missiles and enough guns, I am sure they would be fighting the Israeli army instead of Israeli civilians, but they don’t. Skirmishes with the Israeli army are usually fought with petrol bombs and rocks by the Palestinians, why do you think that is? Give the Palestinians a missile and see wether they will use it against the Israeli government or a civilian target.
They are occuppied by a foreign army and they are fighting back the only way they can. If I were in the Palestinians’ shoes, I wish I could do the same for my country. Saying these people want to die is just ignorant (Isn’t today Michael Jackson day?) - they want to fight their enemy and they are happy to give their life to protect their country (although the amount of “protection” they get from blowing up pregnant women is open for debate).
Posted by gobear:
Sorry, but fuck you. Those of us who are sympathetic to the Palestinian POV don’t say the Palestinians “can do no wrong” and I don’t care if Israelis are Christian, Jewish or Scientologists (sp?). ISRAEL is occupying Palestine, not Jews. For fuck’s sakes man, I’m opposed to the American occupation of Iraq, too - do you think that’s because I’m anti-christian as well as anti-semitic?
Just for the record, I have no ideas as to how this war can be stopped. Both sides commit atrocities on a regular basis and each country oozes hatred for the other. This will not have a happy ending.
My point with the link is to show that the leadership of Palestine is responsible for murder. My second point is that if each nation/region is to be judged collectively, one must understand the difference between a murderer and a killer. There are levels of evil, and while you may not feel the need to aknowledge it, it’s important if someone is to make these judgements.
You’re obviously a strict pacifist, and while that may work for you, it does not work for the well being of a nation; especially when an attacking nation/region wants nothing more than to destroy you.
That depends on the circumstances. Did the person who murdered the 10 children stop? Did they show any signs of repenting? How about the person who murdered 100 children? Will they continue to murder again? Did they murder or kill them? The man who kills more people in order to defend his many brothers is better of a person than he who murders fewer people in order to destroy that man and his brothers.
Show me where I said each person should be judged individually as opposed to each nation/region to their policies. You won’t, because that isn’t what I’m arguing. But arguing with you is pointless because you see no difference between someone (and when I say that, I mean a nation/region) who has murdered and someone who has killed.
I have to get ready for work. You have a good day, Avenger. If that isn’t nearly as pittish as it should be, I’ve had sex with your loved ones.
Gobear, can I temporarily elect you King of the Jews so we can get this done?
Agreed. At no point have I given any credence to an opposing view.
No, actually I do acknowledge that. I wouldn’t categorise myself as a strict pacifist, although I do appear to have woke up in that kind of mood this morning and I can see how you would get that from my posts in this thread!
We appear to agree entirely in our views of the Palestinian militants, but differ in our views of the actions of Israeli militants (I’m trying to keep using ‘militants’ to avoid tarring the entire of either nation with the same brush btw). My opinion is that things have been done by Israel which should not be tolerated of civilised people. Your view is either that this is not true, or that those actions can be excused by the things that have been done to Israel.
All of them, or just some?
Thanks, but seeing how things turned out for the last King of the Jews, I’m going to have to decline.
You, personally, may not be anti-Semitic, but enough anti-Semitic rhetoric is used to denounce Israel’s treatment of the Paelstinians that the border between anti-Israel sentiment and good old-fashioned Jew hatred is a porous one indeed.
Moreover, I find this line of yours, “ISRAEL is occupying Palestine” interesting. am I right in surmising that you want more than for Israel to pull out of the West Bank and return to the pre-1967 borders. For Israel to pull out of the whole of Palestine means that Israel would have to cease to exist because Israel is IN Palestine.
Israel has to abandon its heavy-handed tactics and find a compromise that it and the Palestinians can live with, but Israel is the natural ally of the Western world–we should help her preserve her right to exist as a nation.
While the wording is somewhat ambiguous, my reading is that “Palestine” here refers to the ‘occupied territory’ envisiged as a Palestinian state in the roadmap currently doing sterling service in the Oval Office toilet.
…and it matters little to a corpse whether it’s a corpse of a dead skunk or a dead human child. Yet most sane people would agree there is a difference between killing a skunk and a human. There is a fundamental moral difference between killing someone on purpose and killing someone accidentally that you just can’t wash away by a few clever, or not so clever as it is, words.
…and what part of killing pregnant women and children do you think merit being called freedom fighters?
Even were it true, which it’s not, need of lack of means does not magically absolve you of all moral responsibility. A man who wilfully kills pregnant women and small children are no less to blame because he didn’t have the means to confront an army.
They are not fighting back. They are murdering innocent children! And there are about a gazillion better ways they could go about reaching their goals.
I do hope what you’re saying here is not that you wish you could kill pregnant women and small children.
Actually no. Saying that would be to repeat what they say themselves.
But what we have right here is some men killing a pregnant women and her four children. And you seem not to be able to find anything wrong with that. So I hope you’ll excuse me for being a little perplexed on what you think they could do worse that you would actually describe as wrong?