Question - Is it true that Velcro Gloves are the best way to get a grip on a sheep?
I am going to the fountain of knowledge that you possess on this matter.
Several dead, many wounded in bus attack in Israel
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Question - Is it true that Velcro Gloves are the best way to get a grip on a sheep?
I am going to the fountain of knowledge that you possess on this matter.
Point one.....please see post number 126 on this thread........which has links to several sites proving Hamas wants to exterminate the Jews, and which includes two vids of Hamas imams preaching on the extermination of the Jews.
Point two....
Hamas agrees to a treaty. Hamas re-arms and re-organizes. Hamas attacks Israel, breaking the Treaty. Israel kicks Hamas hard, killing many of their (not too bright) militants. Repeat.
See Operation Cast Lead and Last Week.
Part one: Yeah I already called you out on your videos created by bigots who own Muslim hate-sites .
Part two: Reverting back to making up stuff
Now you're trying to argue that Netanyahu isn't right-wing? :lol:
The vids are of HAMAS , O brain dead one! lol
And yes, they are a hate group....their desperate desire to murder all Jews, every single one, is evident.....to anyone with an IQ in the three digit range....
Oh, and who oppresses the Palestinians?????
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/world/middleeast/20gaza.html?_r=3
Oh, forgive me, I forgot to check....Is the NY Times on your list of hate sites?????
LMAO.
This is the second person you've accused of posting hate material. If that was the case, you should Report the offending posts. If the people you accused of posting said hate material did no such thing then that is slander.
The vids are of HAMAS , O brain dead one! lol
And yes, they are a hate group....their desperate desire to murder all Jews, every single one, is evident.....to anyone with an IQ in the three digit range....
Oh, and who oppresses the Palestinians?????
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/world/middleeast/20gaza.html?_r=3
Oh, forgive me, I forgot to check....Is the NY Times on your list of hate sites?????
LMAO.
By 3 digits you are of course referring to - 00.1
I'm accurate . JihadWatch is a hate-site. Jihad Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The vids are of HAMAS , O brain dead one! lol
And yes, they are a hate group....their desperate desire to murder all Jews, every single one, is evident.....to anyone with an IQ in the three digit range....
Oh, and who oppresses the Palestinians?????
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/world/middleeast/20gaza.html?_r=3
Oh, forgive me, I forgot to check....Is the NY Times on your list of hate sites?????
LMAO.
The rocks of the Palestinians are directed at Israel , not Hamas.
I'm not reporting anything because I'm not offended. I'm not a little girl like CDNBear who loses debates and has to go on a reporting rampage as a last resort. Hahahahaha.
Just because c.a.i.r. says so it doesn't make it a hate site you Dhimwit
Achmed- I KILL YOU - YouTube
Achmed- I KILL YOU - YouTube
MEMRI.TV is another useless site catered to bigot morons
Accusations of bias
Several commentators, such as CNN's Arabic department, have claimed that the transcript of the April 13 show (2007) provided by MEMRI contains numerous translation errors and undue emphases.[26]
Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper wrote in a public email debate with Carmon, "My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation."[3] In an earlier column, Whitaker charged that MEMRI's role was to "further the political agenda of Israel."[1] Whitaker complained that MEMRI's website does not mention Carmon's employment for Israeli intelligence, or Meyrav Wurmser's "extreme brand of Zionism." Whitaker believes MEMRI is not a trustworthy vehicle given the founders political background.[3]
Responsing to Whitaker's criticism of Carmon's "political background", Carmon argued:
"You continually refer to my supposed "political background" as if I had something to hide, and I wonder if I am your real target here. As a civil servant and adviser on counter-terrorism to both Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin, prime ministers from opposing camps, my role was not a political appointment. If your complaint is that I am Israeli, then please say so."[3]
Carmon also questioned Whitaker's own biases, stating that:
I note your website is "Al-Bab", ("The Gateway" in Arabic). Would I be justified in concluding that you are not, in fact, completely neutral about the Middle East, even though you are Middle East editor of a national newspaper? I wonder how you would judge an editor whose website was called "Ha-Sha-ar" ("The Gateway" in Hebrew)?.[3]
This is why I asked you if you understood Arabic and knew if the subtitles in the videos you posted were accurate.
It's a clear hate-site.. It does nothing but defame Islam , intentionally making up erroneous claims about the faith.
Anyone who isn't a complete tool would agree.
Accusations of bias
Several commentators, such as CNN's Arabic department, have claimed that the transcript of the April 13 show (2007) provided by MEMRI contains numerous translation errors and undue emphases.[26]
Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper wrote in a public email debate with Carmon, "My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it's basically a propaganda operation."[3] In an earlier column, Whitaker charged that MEMRI's role was to "further the political agenda of Israel."[1] Whitaker complained that MEMRI's website does not mention Carmon's employment for Israeli intelligence, or Meyrav Wurmser's "extreme brand of Zionism." Whitaker believes MEMRI is not a trustworthy vehicle given the founders political background.[3]
Responsing to Whitaker's criticism of Carmon's "political background", Carmon argued:
"You continually refer to my supposed "political background" as if I had something to hide, and I wonder if I am your real target here. As a civil servant and adviser on counter-terrorism to both Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin, prime ministers from opposing camps, my role was not a political appointment. If your complaint is that I am Israeli, then please say so."[3]
Carmon also questioned Whitaker's own biases, stating that:
I note your website is "Al-Bab", ("The Gateway" in Arabic). Would I be justified in concluding that you are not, in fact, completely neutral about the Middle East, even though you are Middle East editor of a national newspaper? I wonder how you would judge an editor whose website was called "Ha-Sha-ar" ("The Gateway" in Hebrew)?.[3]
This is why I asked you if you understood Arabic and knew if the subtitles in the videos you posted were accurate.
It's a clear hate-site.. It does nothing but defame Islam , intentionally making up erroneous claims about the faith.
Anyone who isn't a complete tool would agree.
I'm not reporting anything because I'm not offended. I'm not a little girl like CDNBear who loses debates and has to go on a reporting rampage as a last resort. Hahahahaha.[/QUOTE]
No you are not a little girl - But you are dumb - Piss off the Mods when they are clearly right earns you a vacation.
No you are not a little girl - But you are dumb - Piss off the Mods when they are clearly right earns you a vacation.
And he is deffinitly full of what comes out of the south end of a camel heading north :grin:
In your opinion...............Biased as it is:lol:
I'm not pissing off the mods, and I'm not dumb. That's LIBEL!! REPORTED!!!!!!!!!!!
We are all under attack by fascism. Singling out one group while ignoring all the others is indeed biased and fascist in it's own right.
Want a whiff of my coffee? It's fresh.
I'm sick and ****ing tired of the whole lot of fascists world wide, especially those on Wall street, Bay Street and the City of London.
Israel is guilty. Without the curse of Israel the ME would be a relative paradise. It's only a matter of time. Crime duzzn't pay forever. Fornicate Israel.
Greetings Goober, I hasn't been no where and I'm not well either. Your thoughts count though, I'm reminded. Fornicate Israel hardnheavy.
I'm not sure you can libel an alias of someone. This should be a forum for debate. Few people will continue reading a string if its just a flame war. IMO, the person resorting to name calling in a debate is a looser. They can't win the debate by logic so they drag themselves and everyone else with them into the mud, I don't see the point in this. Its juvenile.
Back on subject....
When this story first broke I wasn't sure what to make of it. Was it a "terrorist attack" or a "military operation".
First off... I have a problem with the concept "war on terrorism" and the word "terrorism". These concepts and words may have had real meanings at one time, but now they have become propaganda devices to describe the actions of our adversaries, when they do to the same thing to us as what we do to them.
When people attack us, its terrorism. When we attack them, its either a military operation or a mistake.
I've adopted a more neutral way to view attacks which helps filter out the BS propaganda.
1) military operation: An attack is directed primarily at belligerents and supporting infrastructure and attempts to avoid or minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. Some level of collateral damage is inevitable and acceptable.
2) war crime or criminal activity: An attack directed primarily at civilians and civilian infrastructure. Some people would call this terrorism....
3) mistake: an attack associated with an error or malfunction which might result in military and/or civilian casaulties
When I apply the above rationale and hold the Palestinian militants to the same standard as people like Colpy hold the IDF I come to interesting conclusions....
While the primary targets in this attack seem to be public transportation which at first glance indicates a criminal activity aka terrorism, the resulting majority of casualties were IDF soldiers (belligerents). The dead include a decorated sniper (who has probably killed many Palestinians over the years) a Staff Sargent and a counter intelligence expert. So 3/5 dead are clearly belligerents in this conflict. The other two appear to be a spouse of one of the belligerents and a unknown civilian who may or may not be in the military or reserves. Our news reported this incident as terrorism.
Yet when the IDF carries out a mission and only a single militant is killed, its a legit military mission. Take this January 1, 2009 attack. The IDF dropped a 1 ton bomb on an apartment building. It killed 1 belligerent, his wife and three children as well as other people who may have been militants or just people who had the misfortune of being near the IDF's target. The attack also injured and maimed many other people. Judge the destruction for yourself:
Hamas leader, 20 Palestinians killed in IAF strikes - Israel News, Ynetnews
The IDF claims they tried to warn everyone, but that's unlikely since its pretty hard to warn all the civilians and not let your intended target know at the same time.
2002
As you can see, when the IDF attacks Palestinians, the operation is either a legit military operation or a mistake depending on the civilian to militant militant casualty ratio. According to Colpy and others who believe Israel can do no wrong, these civilians are examples of Palestinian militants using civilians as human shields.
When Palestinian militants attack Israelis, the civilian to militant ratio is beside the point. Its always terrorism.
I suppose keeping it simple like this helps our news properly label what is a legitimate military attack, a mistake and terrorism. In the olden days, reporters and readers had it much harder. Reporters used to have to meet journalistic standards and try to describe what happened as accurately and unbiased as possible and the reader had to think for themselves. Nowadays, government sources tell the reporters what to write and give readers their opinion. Most of the posts in this thread are proof that most people have stopped thinking for themselves.
Its so much easier now, that no one has to think for themselves any more. My belief in critical thought and thinking for yourself must make me quaintly old fashioned.
Lets re-examine last Friday's attack using the same reasoning and rationale the IDF uses for its attacks which is accepted by Colpy and others who believe Israel can do no wrong.
The casualty ratio of militants to civilians in last Friday's attack was 3/5, with military casualties being the majority. Some civilians near the belligerents were also killed, but if even one of the casualties is a belligerent, then its a legit military attack according to the standard by which Colpy and other Israeli apologists hold the IDF.
Regarding the use of human shields. Colpy and other Israeli apologists won't admit that IDF soldiers are using human shields when they abduct civilians to block bullets and search for bombs. Clearly it is, but they ignore them, since Israel can do no wrong. But let's assume they are correct and accept their belief that Palestinian militants use human shields to explain high civilian casualty rates resulting from IDF attacks. Holding Palestinian militants to the same standard that Israeli apologists hold the IDF, its clear that the IDF also uses Israeli civilians as human shields. If Palestinian militants can't live in apartment buildings or use public transportation, then neither can IDF soldiers. Otherwise you would be following a double standard.
That my friends is an example of using logic and critical thought to make your point. Notice I didn't insult anyone, but my message was clearly directed at Colpy and others here who callously defend Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity.
For the record, I don't defend or support war crimes or war criminals. This conflict has plenty of examples on both sides.
Back on subject....
When this story first broke I wasn't sure what to make of it. Was it a "terrorist attack" or a "military operation".
First off... I have a problem with the concept "war on terrorism" and the word "terrorism". These concepts and words may have had real meanings at one time, but now they have become propaganda devices to describe the actions of our adversaries, when they do to the same thing to us as what we do to them.
When people attack us, its terrorism. When we attack them, its either a military operation or a mistake.
I've adopted a more neutral way to view attacks which helps filter out the BS propaganda.
1) military operation: An attack is directed primarily at belligerents and supporting infrastructure and attempts to avoid or minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. Some level of collateral damage is inevitable and acceptable.
2) war crime or criminal activity: An attack directed primarily at civilians and civilian infrastructure. Some people would call this terrorism....
3) mistake: an attack associated with an error or malfunction which might result in military and/or civilian casaulties
When I apply the above rationale and hold the Palestinian militants to the same standard as people like Colpy hold the IDF I come to interesting conclusions....
While the primary targets in this attack seem to be public transportation which at first glance indicates a criminal activity aka terrorism, the resulting majority of casualties were IDF soldiers (belligerents). The dead include a decorated sniper (who has probably killed many Palestinians over the years) a Staff Sargent and a counter intelligence expert. So 3/5 dead are clearly belligerents in this conflict. The other two appear to be a spouse of one of the belligerents and a unknown civilian who may or may not be in the military or reserves. Our news reported this incident as terrorism.
Yet when the IDF carries out a mission and only a single militant is killed, its a legit military mission. Take this January 1, 2009 attack. The IDF dropped a 1 ton bomb on an apartment building. It killed 1 belligerent, his wife and three children as well as other people who may have been militants or just people who had the misfortune of being near the IDF's target. The attack also injured and maimed many other people. Judge the destruction for yourself:
Hamas leader, 20 Palestinians killed in IAF strikes - Israel News, Ynetnews
The IDF claims they tried to warn everyone, but that's unlikely since its pretty hard to warn all the civilians and not let your intended target know at the same time.
I also noticed that even when most of the casualties of an IDF attack are civilians, our news still doesn't label it a terrorist attack. Instead its a "mistake".
2002
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Peres 'regrets Gaza bombing mistake'
As you can see, when the IDF attacks Palestinians, the operation is either a legit military operation or a mistake depending on the civilian to militant militant casualty ratio. According to Colpy and others who believe Israel can do no wrong, these civilians are examples of Palestinian militants using civilians as human shields.
When Palestinian militants attack Israelis, the civilian to militant ratio is beside the point. Its always terrorism.
I suppose keeping it simple like this helps our news properly label what is a legitimate military attack, a mistake and terrorism. In the olden days, reporters and readers had it much harder. Reporters used to have to meet journalistic standards and try to describe what happened as accurately and unbiased as possible and the reader had to think for themselves. Nowadays, government sources tell the reporters what to write and give readers their opinion. Most of the posts in this thread are proof that most people have stopped thinking for themselves.
Its so much easier now, that no one has to think for themselves any more. My belief in critical thought and thinking for yourself must make me quaintly old fashioned.
Lets re-examine last Friday's attack using the same reasoning and rationale the IDF uses for its attacks which is accepted by Colpy and others who believe Israel can do no wrong.
The casualty ratio of militants to civilians in last Friday's attack was 3/5, with military casualties being the majority. Some civilians near the belligerents were also killed, but if even one of the casualties is a belligerent, then its a legit military attack according to the standard by which Colpy and other Israeli apologists hold the IDF.
Regarding the use of human shields. Colpy and other Israeli apologists won't admit that IDF soldiers are using human shields when they abduct civilians to block bullets and search for bombs. Clearly it is, but they ignore them, since Israel can do no wrong. But let's assume they are correct and accept their belief that Palestinian militants use human shields to explain high civilian casualty rates resulting from IDF attacks. Holding Palestinian militants to the same standard that Israeli apologists hold the IDF, its clear that the IDF also uses Israeli civilians as human shields. If Palestinian militants can't live in apartment buildings or use public transportation, then neither can IDF soldiers. Otherwise you would be following a double standard.
That my friends is an example of using logic and critical thought to make your point. Notice I didn't insult anyone, but my message was clearly directed at Colpy and others here who callously defend Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity.
For the record, I don't defend or support war crimes or war criminals. This conflict has plenty of examples on both sides.
Last edited: