- Joined
- May 14, 2009
- Messages
- 24,263
- Reaction score
- 8,512
- Location
- Israel
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
She should be lynched.
By peaceful activists, of course.
She should be lynched.
By peaceful activists, of course.
Oh yeah,...
I don't know about you,... but She makes me moist.
More likely because, on a regular basis, Israel forgot that an "eye for an eye" doesn't mean "116 eyes for an eye"
That was also the goal in WW II. We now live in peace with germany because they surrendered. The Arab/Israeli War has been going on for over 60 years because the losers still haven't surrendered.The only difference with the WWII is that the goal of Israel/Palestinians is not to destroy each others, it is to reach an acceptable peace and live as good neighbors.
Whether you realize it or not, you just agreed that Israel's actions were proportionate according to the definition that you posted.I do not contest the necessity of a reaction from Israel.
I do not contest that Israel did everything that was possible to avoid civilian casualties, both during the raid on Gaza and during the raid on the flotilla
YouTube - Helen Thomas tells Jews to go back to Germany
And the liberals place this lady on a pedestal. LOL
I'm curious - -how does one react "proportionately" to those who have vowed genocide against you in their very charter?
Well then there is a misunderstanding.
Contrary to what you seem to believe (maybe because some European governments seemed to say it was "not proportional" because there were 9 killed on one side and 0 on the other) proportionality is not related with any kind of ratio (well...not in law at least)
For example, if there is a huge threat and that the only way to avoid a danger is to take extreme measures (such as slaughtering millions of animals during the "mad cow" or the swine flu crisises) it is "proportional".
It was proportional to kill and cremate millions of chickens to avoid further contamination and possible human deaths.
Proportionality is not a ratio, it is (roughly) the 3 criters I have mentioned. You can trust me, I have studied that in Constitutional Law 3 years ago (if you can search in the archives you should be able to find a very old thread where I was already saying the same)
It would be better than replying to Katusha rockets with aerial bombing and demolition of houses, yes.
The only difference with the WWII is that the goal of Israel/Palestinians is not to destroy each others, it is to reach an acceptable peace and live as good neighbors.
Sounds like you are getting numerically proportional, bub. In some cases, aerial bombing and the demolition of houses may be the approrpriate response.
.
It's true that there is no call for genocide in the Likkud Charter
Neither does the Likkud Charter
I said "would accept the existence". Read the 2nd link, they say they would not "explicitely recognise Israel", but that they would still accept it.
More likely because, on a regular basis, Israel forgot that an "eye for an eye" doesn't mean "116 eyes for an eye"
It's not "the Pals" attacking Israel. It's militant groups within their population. You just betrayed an extreme ignorance of the situation and exposed how your position is one of emotional knee-jerking.
Someone says something mean/hateful/stupid and the conservatives and libertarians eat it up???
Did I ever say that we need better people here in our nation?
Perhaps the Pals should get the message and stop attacking Israel.
"The objective of any war is to do more damage, in less time, than your enemy" --General George S. Patton Jr.
Great, so who was living there, Jordanians?It belonged to Jordon.
Don Imus isn't a politician, either, but we saw Liberals get allllllll involved in that brew-ha-ha. We hear Liberals crying, "racism", all the time when talking about Rush and Glenn Beck and neither of them have said anything near this racial.
I guess the real question is: what should expect from Liberals, at all? Anything?
Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying... 116 eyes = 232 people. I think the jews have killed many more than 232 Palestinians.Israel has many, even eons to go before it can ever be 116 eyes. And I feel that if Israel pursues this course, without an attitude change, they will be no more....hope I am wrong....
As far as the "rest of the world" not liking the Jews, this is a reflection of the rest of the world..
We need better people.
What do you think a proportional response for words is?
Because the original post claims that libs put her on a pedistal, that way the cons can bitch that libs aren't dragging her through the streets behind a prius...I don't see why everyone's getting so ****ing bent out of shape about what Helen Thomas said. For **** sake why does it offend some of you so much? Jesus she's like 3000 years old and probably going senile does it at all surprise you?
But anyway, as usual the same people who tell minorities to shut up when they get offended by something, cry and wail and grind their teeth when someone insults something that they themselves aren't.
Her face looks like an ugly Halloween witch's mask. She could always model for the wicked witch of the west.:shock: Me thinks the old timer is losing her marbles. Maybe it's about that time to start thinking of retiring.
Her face looks like an ugly Halloween witch's mask. She could always model for the wicked witch of the west.
Perhaps I misunderstand what you are saying... 116 eyes = 232 people. I think the jews have killed many more than 232 Palestinians.