a
Terrorism:
One difference.
What an offensive image. The Palestinian people are the victims of a brutal apartheid executed by the Israelis. The desperation in which they exist can only foment extremism. Then we gape in disbelief when foreign agitators and shadowy intelligence operatives whip up battalions of disaffected Palestinian young men into roving gangs who are easily goaded into firing indiscriminately in the direction of the true cause of their oppression - Israel.
Clayton -
Anenome: One difference.
LOL Awesome.
Clayton: What an offensive image. The Palestinian people are the victims of a brutal apartheid executed by the Israelis. The desperation in which they exist can only foment extremism. Then we gape in disbelief when foreign agitators and shadowy intelligence operatives whip up battalions of disaffected Palestinian young men into roving gangs who are easily goaded into firing indiscriminately in the direction of the true cause of their oppression - Israel. Clayton -
The difference is in putting explosives on children and using them as weapons. How many Israelis vs. Palestinians have done this, Clayton?
While I think Israel is responsible for most of Palestine's plight, this image is just showing the difference in tactics. You can argue that Palestinians have been driven to use such abhorable tactics because they are far, far poorer and are always on the losing end in a lopsided power struggle to regain their land. I'd agree. But that doesn't change the fact that they have been known to use these deplorable tactics. It's not Islamophobia, it's just being realistic.
However, I guess the image makes the Israeli look like the "good guy", which is misleading, you're right. It'd be like a British propaganda picture of the Americans during the Revolutionary War using our notorious guerilla warfare tactics against the noble Brits doing war the "right way".
I posted it as a comment on tactics and that alone.
It is despicable for the Palestinians to place rocket emplacements and the like near civilian positions to force Israelis to potentially injure innocents in order to defende themselves.
One difference?
So the Palestinians have billions of dollars worth of nuclear weapons, tanks, state of the art equipment and guns, jets, and have the backing of the largest government in the world the US? The only difference is this one tactic?
Israel builds neighborhoods to prevent attacks or even negotiations over disputed land. No one can fight over it if they illegally throw people out, build, and then have cute little babies living there. It seems that is the same thing.
"One difference?... The only difference is this one tactic?"
No, one difference as in "this is one difference between them." No one used the limiter 'only' except you.
I hardly care if they're doing something 'illegal' when it's the UN supposedly defining what's legal. What I care about is are they doing something ethical.
Placing attack sites near innocents to use innocents as human targets is not ethical. Apart from anything else, you have to admit that.
Well, given the nihilistic, flesh-eating mentality of the neocons (many of whom are, coincidentally(?), Zionists...), we should be applauding the Palestinians who are at least making good use of the children they kill in terms of "hitting back at their enemy" whereas when the Israelis kill Palestinian children it only worsens their problems by radicalizing Palestinians even further. Bad strategy.
But the real issue is that killing children - or anyone for that matter - is reprehensible and disgustingly immoral. Draping a flag over the killer and declaring him and his gang-lords to be immune from the proper legal consequences of their crimes creates precisely the sort of wanton, barbaric behavior that economic theory and praxeology predicts. This is a global phenomenon, it is not restricted to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Elites turn our attention to Israel/Palestine to deflect it away from the very same conflict they are creating here at home, on the streets of our neighborhoods where heavily armed men are beating and shooting people virtually at will. If you've followed the LRC or the Police Brutality/Aggression thread, you will be well aware of what I'm talking about.
If you're going to have an opinion on the conflict, it would do you well to get educated about the facts, which are heavily distorted by the MSM and the political establishment, many of whom are beholden to the Zionist lobby one way or another. Ask yourself why these guys are shaking hands with a man who has supposedly vowed to wipe them off the face of the map?:
https
This guy can help you get started:
Interesting that you write off one sides actions as being "forced" by the other side, but not the other way around. That's a rather naive narrative to buy into.
Looking at that picture, what's going on? The heroic Israeli soldier must shoot the crazed Palistine who shoots at him while hiding behind a woman and carrying a baby strapped to explosives. But what is the Palestinian shooting at? The soldier (um, "chicken or egg. . .")? The woman hiding behind him with her child? Or is it something out of view - on the far right (hmm) side of the frame - something that perhaps neither the Israeli soldier or woman realizes is behind them and using them for its shield?
Would you rather live in Israel or Palestine?
Do Arabs/Muslims live peacefully in Israel?
Why don't you guys create a thread on it to discuss further and let's leave this picts thread alone.
Thank you.
I'd rather stay where I am. Although I here Chile is nice.
Anenome: Why don't you guys create a thread on it to discuss further and let's leave this picts thread alone. Thank you.
How about you leave the disgusting pro-war propaganda posters out of the thread as though they're somehow "pro-freedom" because its Israel.
How about you stop hijacking the Freedom Images thread? The majority of the images you post are at best warmed-over Republicanism.
Hear hear. Without going further into the Isreal debate, the image is propaganda for a militarisitic and highly statist nation, nothing to do with freedom. Consider what the Isreali blockade of Gaza has done to the civilian population there, and weapons still get in, so what "good" does all that suffering get them? Anyway, back to regularly scheduled programming:
Two more, just to make sure we're back on track, heh:
Looks like the infiltrators are taking off their masks.
Clayton: Looks like the infiltrators are taking off their masks. Clayton -
I just thought it was interesting. Many people on here seem to make the Palestinians out to be oppressed little angels just trying to make a living. I think Newt was right.
What kind of horrible people celebrate the death of an old man killed without a trial, you ask?
shackleford: Clayton: Looks like the infiltrators are taking off their masks. Clayton - I just thought it was interesting. Many people on here seem to make the Palestinians out to be oppressed little angels just trying to make a living. I think Newt was right.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Anenome:
"the majority voted for nobody"
Is that really true? It says the turnout was 57%. That means the majority voted for somebody.
However, a majority didn't vote for Obama. He got half of that 57%, meaning that 28% voted for him. Romney got 47, and so 26% voted for Romney.
LogisticEarth: What kind of horrible people celebrate the death of an old man killed without a trial, you ask?
Did Bin Laden claim responsibility? Are you suggesting that Bin Laden should have been tried? Who would have conducted this trial? Don't you think the case against the alleged Israeli spy might have been a wee bit more tenous than the case against Bin Laden?
I'm also not against not having a trial, just when the government isn't invovled.
John Ess: "the majority voted for nobody" Is that really true? It says the turnout was 57%. That means the majority voted for somebody. However, a majority didn't vote for Obama. He got half of that 57%, meaning that 28% voted for him. Romney got 47, and so 26% voted for Romney.
That's of eligible voters, not the population.