[Closed] Muslims offended again

joolsburger - Member

Why? If you believe in and live your life based on a set of supernatural beliefs without a shred of evidence and those beliefs infact inform some questionable(at best)moral decisions I'd say you were, in fact, a nutter.

Ah. So all religious people are nutters. Except the hypocrites obviously.

Writing off 28 million people as nutters because they live in Saudi Arabia is just phenomenal.

Ah. So all religious people are nutters. Except the hypocrites obviously.

Writing off 28 million people as nutters because they live in Saudi Arabia is just phenomenal.

I would consider the 5 to 15 percent of muslims that support terrorism to be nutters.

We have plenty of nutters as well, but if Jehovah's Witnesses were blowing themselves up I somehow doubt you'd be as outraged by the nutter comment. Personally, I do consider highly religious misogynists to be nutters so I would never visit a state like Saudi Arabia.

The question asked to get those numbers was: “Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?”

So if you say violence against civilian targets to defend islam can be acceptable, you're a nutter. Substitute "Israel", ask yourself the same question, then have a think.

I would consider the 5 to 15 percent of muslims that support terrorism to be nutters.

80% of Jewish Israelis support terrorism against Arabs. So more nutters in Israel than in Saudi Arabia according to your logic.

That number is way higher in places like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, also where did you find that number and what was your point?

So if you say violence against civilian targets to defend islam can be acceptable, you're a nutter. Substitute "Israel", ask yourself the same question, then have a think.

The question implies intentionally targeting civilians. However, it's one of the reasons why I'm not as quick to damn Israel as you are. As the other sides opinions are just as horrific, the only difference being their ability to kill each other - morally they are equals. Live by the sword etc ad nauseum.

Do you think the Muslim descendants of Al Andalus should be allowed the right of return to Spain? I'm on the fence about this but I'd be interested to here your opinion on it.

So, nutter or hypocrite?

I'd consider radicals of any religion as nutters, or anyone for that matter who thinks explicitly targeting civilians is acceptable.

The argument is whether Israel does that and how many Israelis support targeting civilians for the lolz.

No idea. Since they scrapped minimum height requirement ?

Well played 😆

Tom they either target them or they are really bad shots 🙄

Can we have a little balance here.

FWIW they do not actively target children but they do accept that large numbers of them will die when they target hamas and they bomb UN sites, hospitals and schools or safe havens they have advised them to go to as they deliver a collective punishment

None of this is legal or moral.

If the M'lims are not fighting other religions then they fighting amongst other Islamic sects.

It's a good job that you don't get any of that nonsense with other religions. Can you imagine Protestants fighting Catholics? The very notion!

Tom_W1987 - Member

The argument is whether Israel does that

It's really not, Israel attacks civilian targets, that's undeniable. And that's what the question you're using to support your nutter claim asked.

So it's hypocrite then. A shame. I was kind of hoping you might actually subject yourself to your own judgement, it's an interesting experience to come up short of your own standards.

Prove to me that the IDF expressly attacks civilian targets Northwind.

FWIW they do not actively target children but they do accept that large numbers of them will die when they target hamas and they bomb UN sites, hospitals and schools or safe havens they have advised them to go to as they deliver a collective punishment

I do agree with your sentiment here, however, it's being reported that over the past week Israelis have hardened their opinions due to the response of the worlds media. I wonder how much of their willingness to "get the job done" and attack targets near schools and hospitals is because of that. I would also still be interested to see reliable evidence of the ratio of civilian casualties to combatants before I can support any claim that the Israeli's are collectively punishing Gazans by disproportionately killing civilians.

I'm uneasy about jumping to conclusions before seeing evidence.

I see Ernie et al have not taken the Al Andalus bait yet.

This opening ceremony sound like a bad Miley Cyrus video

Israelis have hardened their opinions due to the response of the worlds media. I wonder how much of their willingness to "get the job done" and attack targets near schools and hospitals is because of that.

Sounds to me like the world's media should stop criticizing Israel for killing civilians as it might be making things worse, ie, Israel is having to kill even more civilians as a result.

So hush everyone and let the Israelis carry on killing innocent civilians without too much criticism.

BTW it's not "targets [i]near[/i] schools and hospitals" it's direct strikes on schools and hospitals.

Writing off 28 million people as nutters because they live in Saudi Arabia is just phenomenal.

I really wasn't. My point (albeit put badly) was that in a fundementalist state such as Saudi you could easily get to a figure higher than 5% for fundamental muslims therefore it would be very easy to see how you could get a 5% figure for global islamic fundamentalism as an average across all islamic states. I'd suggest you'd get a similar number for christians, jews, etc etc. Fundamentalist to me means people who unquestioningly believe their magic books and also believe those who interpret the will of god on their behalf like clerics etc.

People seem surprised at the use of the word nutter, if I sincerely believed in Russell's teapot you'd quite rightly think me a nutter - I see little difference between that and religion.

It looked like a bad Miley Cirus video!

Is there any other kind of Miley Cirus video?

People seem surprised at the use of the word nutter, if I sincerely beleived in Russell's teapot you'd quite rightly think me a nutter - I see little difference between that and religion.

Atheists make up less than 3% of the worlds population. Being a "nutter" is obviously normal for a human.

Atheists make up less than 3% of the worlds population. Being a "nutter" is obviously normal for a human.

Yup. Although there are degrees to nutterism and wahabbis are close to the top of that list. Along with extremely orthodox Jews, the church of Christian Scientists, certain Buddhist sects etc etc

if I sincerely beleived in Russell's teapot you'd quite rightly think me a nutter

Either that or everyone else around you are all teapotists and have said they'll kill you if you don't believe in teapots, so you just go along with it.

Though that raises an interesting question; what if in that community, no-one really believes, but they're all afraid of the perceived group wisdom to say different?

Sounds to me like the world's media should stop criticizing Israel for killing civilians as it might be making things worse, ie, Israel is having to kill even more civilians as a result.

So hush everyone and let the Israelis carry on killing innocent civilians without too much criticism.

BTW it's not "targets near schools and hospitals" it's direct strikes on schools and hospitals.

You can mediate without hardening one side further. Also, I'd add, why are Palestinians letting Hamas fire from within schools? Although I don't agree with targeting schools with heavy weaponry.

there are degrees to nutterism

I see, so it's not as straightforward as "you have a religion you must be a nutter".

Fascinating.

Atheists make up less than 3% of the worlds population.

For context, what percentage of the world's population is "first world" and broadly educated, and what percentage are still stoning people who they think are posessed by demons?

You are deliberately dodging reasoned discussion now Ernie.

I'm also dying to here your opinion on the right of return of Muslims to Spain.

You can mediate without hardening one side further.

I'm sorry what does that mean...."gentle" criticism of Israel is allowed ? Otherwise they will just get upset and kill more innocent civilians ?

You can mediate without hardening one side further.

I'm sorry what does that mean...."gentle" criticism of Israel is allowed ? Otherwise they will just get upset and kill more innocent civilians ?

Language used, how mediation is carried out, partition blame to both sides equally.

Today the BBC was going on about how accurate we are with our weaponry in wars and then asked why the Israelis weren't. I laughed ****ing hard at that one, it's crap like that, the single sided hypocritical narrative that is hardening the Israelis.

I've been searching for the most pro Islam figures on the number of radicals so that no-one cries foul.
Dalia Mogahed was in 2008 executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. A multi-year study of Muslim opinion worldwide under her showed that seven percent of Muslims are radical. This is widely disputed as being far too low but still two points up on what I said.

You are deliberately dodging reasoned discussion now Ernie.

You're posting bollocks suggesting that it's the world's media which is to blame for Israel killing innocent civilians, quote :

[i]it's being reported that over the past week Israelis have hardened their opinions due to the response of the worlds media. I wonder how much of their willingness to "get the job done" and attack targets near schools and hospitals is because of that.[/i]

And you talk about "reasoned discussion" ffs you're having a laugh.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/aug/24/israel-boycotts-right-traumatised

It's happened before. Why don't you try and think of a better way the west can try to engage Israel, if we really actually want to stop the bloodshed.

But I'm not entirely convinced that you do want to stop the bloodshed, I think you'd rather let Israel become a pariah state and act like a pariah state for the sake of your own personal ideologies.

Sam Harris has an interesting take on the Israel issue, certainly thought provoking..
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel

Tom_W1987 - Member

Prove to me that the IDF expressly attacks civilian targets Northwind.

Oh ffs. They've blown up houses, a power plant, hospitals. All civilian targets. They've bombed houses with people on the roofs. Oh no, that's fine because they "knock" first- except that's stone cold proof that they're intentionally attacking civilian targets (otherwise, why "knock"?)

You can try to play the "Oh it's OK to attack civilian targets because Hamas" like you did in the last thread, but you can't sensibly claim they don't intentionally attack civilian targets any more than you can declare the earth is flat.

Oh ffs. They've blown up houses, a power plant, hospitals. All civilian targets. They've bombed houses with people on the roofs. Oh no, that's fine because they "knock" first- except that's stone cold proof that they're intentionally attacking civilian targets (otherwise, why "knock"?)

You can try to play the "Oh it's OK to attack civilian targets because Hamas" like you did in the last thread, but you can't sensibly claim they don't intentionally attack civilian targets any more than you can declare the earth is flat.

We have done all of that, has the bombing of civilian buildings with militants inside suddenly become unacceptable overnight or is it only Nato that is allowed to do so? I digress though, I don't believe that the Israeli military is right to use heavy weapons against targets located within civilian buildings.

You still haven't provided any evidence that the Israelis are knowingly attacking buildings that aren't harboring armed militants. You can keep banging the same unevidenced tosh out time and time again Northwind, but until you come up with the evidence I don't believe for a second that Israeli policy is the same as that of Hamas.

but until you come up with the evidence

It is very clear that no matter how many reports there are from Gaza none of it will be enough for you.

You will always find excuses for Israel's appalling and brutal behaviour, as your breathtakingly idiotic suggestion that the "world's media" is responsible for the high civilian casualties in Gaza proves.

It is very clear that no matter how many reports there are from Gaza none of it will be enough for you.

You will always find excuses for Israel's appalling and brutal behaviour, as your breathtakingly idiotic suggestion that the "world's media" is responsible for the high civilian casualties in Gaza proves.

Did I say that? I've said that they've helped escalate the conflict further.

I would be happy to see evidence that showed civilian casualties differed significantly from previous Nato conflicts, if you can prove that then you have a point. I will get back to my point that the medias failure to recognize that we are as bad as the Israelis, is contributing to the crisis more than it is helping.

Keep resorting to using words like "idiotic" Ernie, as you clearly can't actually make a reasoned counter to my argument.

it's an interesting experience to come up short of your own standards

i though he was just trolling as I find it hard to believe anyone believes the stuff he says on here [ not just this thread if I am being honest]

why are Palestinians letting Hamas fire from within schools?

* either hamas does this or they dont try and stop them.

What do you want the unarmed civilians under attack from the IDF and cowering for their lives to do when the armed terrorists [ as you call them] launch an attack somewhere near them....walk over and ask them to stop whilst hoping that
1. The israels dont shoot them
2. hamas dont shoot them

You cannot be being serious here. I am not sure why folk engage with you as I just cannot believe you think this like this as it is unreasonable and illogical and you dont come across as either of those 😕

I'm not entirely convinced that you do want to stop the bloodshed, I think you'd rather let Israel become a pariah state and act like a pariah state for the sake of your own personal ideologies.

Forgive the name calling as you ride your high horse under your bridge 🙄

I'll reveal my hand here. A mate of mine mentioned his riding mate from holiday who was a ex-IDF soldier and fun etc. If I had met him I'd have punched the ****er. Hurt the ****. I've said this before on here, what would Saladin say? Where are the Muslim Scholars today? The great Islamic empires of old, it seems to be converging generally more and more 🙁

ignoring for a moment that fact you cannot prove this* [ by anyones standards let alone the onnes you set for us to use against the IDF lets just have a think here
* either hamas does this or they dont try and stop them.

What do you want the unarmed civilians under attack from the IDF and cowering for their lives to do when the armed terrorists [ as you call them] launch an attack somewhere near them....walk over and ask them to stop whilst hoping that
1. The israels dont shoot them
2. hamas dont shoot them

You cannot be being serious here. I am not sure why folk engage with you as I just cannot believe you think this like this as it is unreasonable and illogical and you dont come across as either of those

Then demand that the PA takes control of Gaza, or at the very least Fatah.

Ok that its I am out this man is a loon and he is beyond the realms of reason if he does believe this shit
Personally I think he ie writing any old tosh to get a reaction get attention and garner responses

Ernie's language when describing himself as anti-Israeli and his use of the comparison to South Africa makes me believe that. What do you think Israel will do if they are boycotted like South Africa was, do you really, really honestly believe things will get better? Unless we are willing to commit troops as peacekeepers to a ceasefire, the best way is conciliation. Not a ratcheting up of the rhetoric and escalating this further. How do you think the Israelis will act once they have no international reputation left to lose?

resorting to using words like "idiotic"

It is the perfect word to describe your suggestion that the world's media might be responsible for the high civilian causalities in Gaza.

When Israel bombs Palestinians and kills innocent civilians they, and they alone, are responsible for that.

You obviously want to shift the blame elsewhere and will clutch desperately at straws, as you clearly have when you blame the world's media for reporting the appalling consequences of Israel's relentless attack on an essentially unarmed people claiming it's making things worse.

It is clear that you would rather the world was completely silent over the suffering of the Palestinians.

You are now cynically misinterpreting me Ernie, reporting the conflict is fine. It's the discourse around it that is not helpful.

I'm not entirely convinced that you do want to stop the bloodshed, I think you'd rather let Israel become a pariah state and act like a pariah state for the sake of your own personal ideologies.

Ernie's language when describing himself as anti-Israeli and his use of the comparison to South Africa makes me believe that.

Yeah you can imagine how upset I was when the Apartheid regime collapsed and the black majority won equal rights. I enjoyed seeing black South Africans suffer as I obviously also do Palestinians 🙄

And you talk about "reasoned discussion" ???

Anyway, you're getting to much attention for your idiotic comments imo.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/jan/26/highereducation.uk1

Academic boycotts against Israel were self-defeating and would only damage its existing relationship with the Palestinians, a conference was told this week.

Sari Nusseibeh, the president of Al-Quds University, the only Arab university in Jerusalem, said the free flow of science and information was a more powerful weapon against war.

"I stand committed to academic cooperation and against boycotts," said Dr Nusseibeh in a letter read out to participants at a two-day conference held at Bar-Ilan University entitled Academic Freedom and the Politics of Boycotts.

You are only helping speed the demise of the constructive peace movements both within Israel and Palestine Ernie. Unless that is, you think you are better than a Palestinian who is ranked among the top 100 intellectuals of the world.

Tom_W1987 - Member

We have done all of that

That was all you had to say- you admit the IDF intentionally attacks civilian targets. You denounce muslims who say attacking civilian targets can be justified. Then you justify it yourself, over and over. I'm not even arguing with you, I just need to hold up a mirror to you.

You say, "You still haven't provided any evidence that the Israelis are knowingly attacking buildings that aren't harboring armed militants."- which was a messy change of question, but despite that I actually have, several times, as have the IDF. They're proud of their "knocks" to terrorise people and destroy empty homes, and they know perfectly well that if by some chance there were armed militants in there, they're long gone by the time they actually hit it.

Lastly, your absurd strawman "I don't believe for a second that Israeli policy is the same as that of Hamas.". I suppose it's not surprising, if your own opinion is based on dishonesty why bother to be honest about anyone else's?

Sometimes I think it must be nice to be a hypocrite. No guilt, no inconvenient honesty, no need for personal consistency. Maybe not even enough self awareness to know what you are? Must be liberating. But then I think, glad that's not me.

If any of you get chance - have a look at this blog by Sam Harris (American philosopher and neuroscientist).

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel
/p>

I found it very interesting.

That was all you had to say- you admit the IDF intentionally attacks civilian targets. You denounce muslims who say attacking civilian targets can be justified. Then you justify it yourself, over and over. I'm not even arguing with you, I just need to hold up a mirror to you.

For gods sake Northwind, I'm not trying to apologize for Israel, what I'm getting at is the language and direction we are taking in resolving the conflict.

If you can link me to evidence that the Israelis are knowingly killing civilians as the primary target then I will accept your claims. It's as simple as that and I will change my tune somewhat.

Tom serving IDF soldiers are on Facebook and breaking the silence describing deliberately targeting civilians in revenge killings . it has also been on the news too.

Thankyou, sodding finally! Link please?

errr... slight tangent

Does anyone else find it incredibly ironic that a band with the name Massive Attack are doing a fundraising gig out there..

I think the situation in Gaza is abominable (excuse the pun) but that little news snippet did make me smirk

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.582503

I've been looking for recent articles/interviews by this chap on the current conflict, it would be great to find one. It appears, sadly, that he has retired possibly due to pressure from Islamists and Jewish right wingers.

I might actually have to try and contact him.

What a load of fuss over a few dogs. Good job they didn't go with pigs.

Google is your friend for breaking the silence .

[img] [/img]

Can't find any twitter quotes etc, all I can find is secondhand information from Eran Efrati. I'm not sure I trust this really.

Deluded - thanks for posting the Sam Harris article. Worth ploughing through the maze, to get to that.

Tom_W1987 - Member

If you can link me to evidence that the Israelis are knowingly killing civilians as the primary target then I will accept your claims.

I make that the 3rd time you've asked for evidence then immediately on receiving it changed your question. But why would I provide you with evidence for something I've never claimed? Why would [i]you[/i] pretend I've claimed something I've not? Why would you demand evidence of something then when it's delivered on a plate, ignore it and ask for evidence of something else entirely?

This is not about "making excuses for israel"- although yes, you do exactly that. It's actually about you. I'd hoped that if you could see the fundamental contradiction in your position, of condemning something in others which you do yourself, you might give that a bit of thought and maybe something good would come of it. You can't build good thoughts on bad foundations, and it seemed like having come out with such an obvious double standard might make you stop and think.

If you don't want to do that, then fair enough but... Know what leads you forward and what holds you back, as a clever religious man said.

What have you given me evidence for, accidental fire/Israeli incompetence?

I'm sorry but the hit schools etc are not evidence of premeditated attacks on civilians. War isn't accurate or perfect, the weapons are not as accurate as you think they are and combat stress can cause soldiers to fire when they shouldn't.

[url= http://forward.com/articles/203121/un-informed-israel--times-about-gaza-school-shel/ ]U.N. Informed Israel 17 Times About Gaza School Shelter Before Attack[/url]

[i] UNRWA chief Pierre Krahenbuhl said the agency had given the school’s precise location to the Israeli military 17 times, with the last notification made just hours before the shelling.[/i]

IMO Ernie I think the use of dumb shells in the conflict is disgusting. Artillery is never that accurate unless smart munitions are used, I think that does highlight at least a disregard for civilians and their own international reputation.

And for what, probably the chance to kill a couple of idiots taking pot shots. I'd like to know whether the IDF arty was actually given the green light by brass to do that.

****ing morons on both sides.

Tom_W1987 - Member

What have you given me evidence for

Initially, intentional fire on civilian targets- which, you will remember, is where we came in, with you condemning muslims who believed attacking civilian targets can be justified.

Then, after I gave you that, you decided to change your order and demanded evidence intentional fire on civilian targets, in the knowledge that there are no militants present. Which I also provided.

It's all just over the page.

Sorry, I'm on my mobile Northwind whilst reading so it's a right pain to go back and find reports.

I can't find any links from you.

so you could post links and massive quotes from said link like this post
http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/muslims-offended-again/page/6#post-6201788
on the last page but you cannot go back on the number link on this page to re read on your phone
[img] [/img]

this defence deserves a name

Artillery is never that accurate

Yes of course "inaccurate artillery" is to blame. Not much point leaving their homes as suggested by the Israelis and seeking shelter in UN schools then.

And strangely enough "inaccurate artillery" never causes the death of Israeli civilians - the school was only about 3km from the Israeli border. Funny that.

I've been on the mobile since then.

Ernie, I just started agreeing with you. The very fact that they were using indirect artillery fire is a travesty.

Still can't find the links on your previous pages NW.

Fog of war eh tom?

Tom_W1987 - Member

Sorry, I'm on my mobile Northwind whilst reading so it's a right pain to go back and find reports.

No reports. Why would I need reports? You conceded yourself that the IDF intentionally attacks civilian targets, in fact they happily admit they do it.

And then, when you tried to justify that (but of course justifying attacks on civilian targets is wrong, if you're a muslim) and demanded evidence that they attack civilian targets that don't have armed militants in them, again the IDF stepped up and proudly declared that they do- by "knocking" they ensure the civilian buildings have no armed militants present.

I was giving you some benefit of the doubt. Now I'm not. These aren't things that even the IDF denies.

Northwind, I won't condemn hitting targets in buildings such as power stations using smart munitions.

I don't agree with engaging targets near hospitals or schools using artillery., or anywhere in gaza for that matter

The problem with not being able to target militants within residential areas is that most of Gaza is built up.

I don't agree with engaging targets near hospitals or schools using artillery.

Why not? If they are legitimate targets why wouldn't you 'approve'? Don't tell us it's because you have a shred of humanity? It's a bit ****inlate for that young tom!

So once again you say attacks on civilian targets are justified. But you condemn muslims for saying attacks on civilian targets can be justified.

Have you ever considered stopping digging?

Are you saying that the Israel is aren't allowed to respond to militants firing unguided rockets?

If so how many Israelis would have to be killed before you allowed the Israel is to respond?

You cannot compromise at all Northwind and I am utterly certain that polarisation like that is what is deepening this conflict by hardening opinions.

I am saying that you say attacks on civilian targets are justified. But you condemn muslims for saying attacks on civilian targets can be justified.

Am I typing in wingdings or something?

There is a difference between premeditated attacks against civilians using suicide bombings and civilians getting caught in IDF attacks.

BTW I'm completely sure that there are plenty of Israelis who would support targeting civilians as well.

We weren't the aggressive, conquering and domineering far superior Ayran race who was looking to rule the earth for a thousand years. We were the blokes (and ladies) with our backs to the wall for 6years.

I'll reveal my hand here. A mate of mine mentioned his riding mate from holiday who was a ex-IDF soldier and fun etc. If I had met him I'd have punched the *. Hurt the *. I've said this before on here, what would Saladin say? Where are the Muslim Scholars today? The great Islamic empires of old, it seems to be converging generally more and more [\quote]
this must be the least revealing revelation ever. understanding its meaning and relevance would require more study than the Dead Sea Scrolls received.

 

Are you saying that the Israel is aren't allowed to respond to militants firing unguided rockets?

What, by targeting women and children and murdering them gruesomely in UN safe havens? What's the death toll now? 1300?

When, in your opinion are the Palestinians 'allowed' to retaliate? How many deaths equals justification?

You are a disgusting apologist for murder tom_W1987.

Did I say that I supported that? Here we go again.

If Hamas wanted to start a war and really cared about civilian palestinian deaths they could stick to cross border incursions and sniper attacks. To defend Hamas attacks as perfectly reasonable 'retaliation' and damn Israel on the other is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Keep resorting to ad Hom, the bastion of the desperate.

Yes you have, consistently, on a number of threads.

You don't like be called out for it though but you have no answer when you are.

Disgusting. Apologist. For murder.

That is what you are.

Haha. You're only reading what you want to read yossarian.

Lol people arguing about Gaza vs. Israel

Oh the irony...

I don't agree with engaging targets near hospitals or schools using artillery.,

You're at it again with your "near". These are direct strikes on deliberate civilian targets.

And it's not just hospitals and schools, Israel has deliberately targeted other civilian assets.

Knocking out Gaza'a only power station was aimed primarily at harming civilians, not Hamas. Or do you think Hamas can't fight without electricity ?

Without electricity available to hospitals people will die, that's sick and injured people, including children, who are no threat to anyone.

Lack of refrigeration, water pumps, etc, will provide very serious health problems for the people of Gaza.

For those reasons plus the fact that the power station was a purely civilian target, not a military one, the UN has said that the strike on the power station may constitute as a war crime.

Tom_W1987 - Member

You cannot compromise at all Northwind and I am utterly certain that polarisation like that is what is deepening this conflict by hardening opinions.

Tom, you just don't seem to be paying the slightest attention to what I'm saying, this comment doesn't make any sense. I don't know what else to say. Are you confusing my posts with other people's or something? While simultaneously ignoring everything I do say? Genuine wtf.

although to be fair for the previous 150 years, "we" had been aggressively conquering and dominating far off peoples and lands with plans to rule over them forever

Konabunny, can you give more input to this thread? Have I been unreasonable in trying to find some middle ground between the anti Israelis and the pro-Israelis?

Knocking out Gaza'a only power station was aimed primarily at harming civilians, not Hamas. Or do you think Hamas can't fight without electricity ?

Good point, I didn't know they had hit their only remaining power station. I don't know what you mean with the 'near' comment, using arty near or directly at or anywhere in Gaza is unacceptable.

I am conceding that I think the Israeli response has been disproportionate, before this I believed they had the right to respond to attacks from within residential areas (basically all of Gaza). But they've pissed that right up the wall.

You win in that regard Ernie, I'm now pretty depressed about the situation and it's ability to be resolved.

[quote=Tom_W1987 said]Haha. You're only reading what you want to read yossarian.

Konabunny, can you give more input to this thread? Have I been unreasonable in trying to fund some middle ground?

[img] [/img]

NW of course you have made sense and raised some rational points [ pwned him so to speak]. Honestly I have no idea if he gets them and ignores them or does not get them at all.

I didn't know they had hit their only remaining power station.

I don't think Gaza had more than one power station, after all it's only 25 miles long by about 5 miles wide.

The low life zionists knocked out their only power station.

Actually, it wasn't NW that changed my opinion. It was Ernies single post about the attack on the UN compound today.

At the start of the conflict I was much more sympathetic to the Israeli cause, that's been slowly eroding but today's attack is unjustifiable.

I stand by my assertion that inclusive dialogue is needed for peace though. I would still like to try and get in contact with that academic.