BBC: More than 10 Palestinians killed in an Israeli strike on thier house

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#401 Posted by cslayer211 (833 posts) -

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] But they are one of the main causes. Everything you say about how the bordering Arab states can help out Palestinian refugees applies to Israel ten-fold. -Sun_Tzu-

Israel with an arab majority would not be Israel. It would be another sh*tty arab country with a large non-muslim minority, like lebanon.

This has nothing to do with letting all the Palestinians into Israel - Israel's in the unique position, relative to their Arab neighbors, of occupying and illegally settling land that isn't their's while Palestinians are regulated to the cramped confines of the Gaza Strip. There are plenty of things that Israel can do for the benefit of the Palestinian people that fall well short of abandoning the Jewish state.

It is important to recognize that Israel is an occupying power in this relationship. That's not to say that Israel is responsible for all of the problems in the region and if Israel were to cease to exist everything would be fine, but they are still responsible for a substantial amount of the suffering that Palestinians endure on a daily basis. Maybe Israel's actions are justified, maybe they aren't, but these aren't facts that can be easily glossed over.

Arabs certainly suffer in Israel and Gaza, but it's not because of Israel, rather their own culture. That's not to say Jews in Israel are completely innocent. I know there's Jews who resent Palestinians (I always slap myself when I use this word to refer to Arabs) who don't want to commit terrorist acts. BTW "occupying" is a modern political hyperbole term that essentially baseless. The Jews can't be occupying their own land.
#402 Posted by BossPerson (9434 posts) -

New Rule: It's immoral in all circumstances to kick someone off the land their parents were born on.

#403 Posted by BossPerson (9434 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"] Israel with an arab majority would not be Israel. It would be another sh*tty arab country with a large non-muslim minority, like lebanon.

cslayer211

This has nothing to do with letting all the Palestinians into Israel - Israel's in the unique position, relative to their Arab neighbors, of occupying and illegally settling land that isn't their's while Palestinians are regulated to the cramped confines of the Gaza Strip. There are plenty of things that Israel can do for the benefit of the Palestinian people that fall well short of abandoning the Jewish state.

It is important to recognize that Israel is an occupying power in this relationship. That's not to say that Israel is responsible for all of the problems in the region and if Israel were to cease to exist everything would be fine, but they are still responsible for a substantial amount of the suffering that Palestinians endure on a daily basis. Maybe Israel's actions are justified, maybe they aren't, but these aren't facts that can be easily glossed over.

Arabs certainly suffer in Israel and Gaza, but it's not because of Israel, rather their own culture. That's not to say Jews in Israel are completely innocent. I know there's Jews who resent Palestinians (I always slap myself when I use this word to refer to Arabs) who don't want to commit terrorist acts. BTW "occupying" is a modern political hyperbole term that essentially baseless. The Jews can't be occupying their own land.

They're occupying the West Bank
#404 Posted by Rockman999 (7232 posts) -

Man this is beyond excessive.

But at least for those kids, the pain and fear is over.

Those are the lucky ones though because they wont be the ones who will essentially be shepherd into a life terrorism after watching their loved ones die at the hands of the nation that oppressed them.

Israel is way too sloppy with this because they're really just creating more opposition instead of easing them.

Oh well, I just hope the primary target of these terrorists remains solely on Israel and doesn't go anywhere near the US.

#405 Posted by PWSteal_Ldpinch (1208 posts) -

New Rule: It's immoral in all circumstances to kick someone off the land they're parents were born on.

BossPerson

Ammendment to the New Rule: it's immoral to kick someone off the land they live in.

#406 Posted by Commander-Gree (4929 posts) -
Ugh, this whole thing is really terrible. I can't support either side, but I feel really bad for all of the innocent civilians that are being killed. .
#407 Posted by Chuubby (416 posts) -

Man this is beyond excessive.

But at least for those kids, the pain and fear is over.

Those are the lucky ones though because they wont be the ones who will essentially be shepherd into a life terrorism after watching their loved ones die at the hands of the nation that oppressed them.

Israel is way too sloppy with this because they're really just creating more opposition instead of easing them.

Oh well, I just hope the primary target of these terrorists remains solely on Israel and doesn't go anywhere near the US.

Rockman999

+1

#408 Posted by BossPerson (9434 posts) -

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

New Rule: It's immoral in all circumstances to kick someone off the land they're parents were born on.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

Ammendment to the New Rule: it's immoral to kick someone off the land they live in.

But then you can just set up camp anywhere you want and declare it for yourself.
#409 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

New Rule: It's immoral in all circumstances to kick someone off the land they're parents were born on.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

Ammendment to the New Rule: it's immoral to kick someone off the land they live in originally.

Fixed.

#410 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -
[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

New Rule: It's immoral in all circumstances to kick someone off the land they're parents were born on.

BossPerson

Ammendment to the New Rule: it's immoral to kick someone off the land they live in.

But then you can just set up camp anywhere you want and declare it for yourself.

That's what the colonists did.
#412 Posted by BossPerson (9434 posts) -

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

New Rule: It's immoral in all circumstances to kick someone off the land they're parents were born on.

WhiteKnight77

Ammendment to the New Rule: it's immoral to kick someone off the land they live in originally.

Fixed.

What does "originally" mean? You're defeating the purpose of my proposition, it was a simple question that will always be given a simple answer, and from that justice can be decided.
#413 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29103 posts) -

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

New Rule: It's immoral in all circumstances to kick someone off the land they're parents were born on.

WhiteKnight77

Ammendment to the New Rule: it's immoral to kick someone off the land they live in originally.

Fixed.

Not really, that (as well as the original quote) is an enormous oversimplification of a much more difficult issue.
#414 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -
[QUOTE="Vatusus"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"] The best part is when my bed shakes like crazy with every air strike.cslayer211

jesus, how can you live like that, knowing that at any given moment it may come down on you?

I cant even imagine

I wish you the best of luck man

That sucks... this is what Hamas and other militants in Gaza do; continuously spend money on military instead of helping their own citizens. If it wasn't for terrorists organizations like this, innocent people like GazaAli wouldn't have to go through the BS that is happening right now.

You know, those are Israeli bombs Ali is refering to...
#415 Posted by PWSteal_Ldpinch (1208 posts) -

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

New Rule: It's immoral in all circumstances to kick someone off the land they're parents were born on.

BossPerson

Ammendment to the New Rule: it's immoral to kick someone off the land they live in.

But then you can just set up camp anywhere you want and declare it for yourself.

  1. Ammendment to the New Rule: it's immoral to kick someone off the land they live in.
  2. Second ammendment to the New Rule: it's immoral to violate New Rule in order to revert previous infractions of New Rule.
  3. Third ammendment to the New Rule: The New Rule is subordinate to existing property laws.
  4. Corollary to Third ammendment to the New Rule: New Rule is applicable only where property laws are absent or indeterminate.


I think I need beans to help sort this out. HELP ME BEANS.

#416 Posted by RadecSupreme (4639 posts) -

What do you hope to get out of this thread? is it pity? is it sympathy? What do you want us to say? The same crap everyone says but doesn't mean? "Oh how tragic how sad oh my gosh war is terrible". Only 2 factions can stop this whether they want to stop this or not, is up to them. Shall we convict Israel for collateral damage? Shall we condemn the Hamas members who use their families as meatshields. I don't understand what you want from this thread. Most us have already seen the pictures, we've already seen the tragedy. Do you know why this is not happening to Israel, because they protect their people, not use them as way to gain international favor and pity.

#417 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"] Israel with an arab majority would not be Israel. It would be another sh*tty arab country with a large non-muslim minority, like lebanon.

cslayer211

This has nothing to do with letting all the Palestinians into Israel - Israel's in the unique position, relative to their Arab neighbors, of occupying and illegally settling land that isn't their's while Palestinians are regulated to the cramped confines of the Gaza Strip. There are plenty of things that Israel can do for the benefit of the Palestinian people that fall well short of abandoning the Jewish state.

It is important to recognize that Israel is an occupying power in this relationship. That's not to say that Israel is responsible for all of the problems in the region and if Israel were to cease to exist everything would be fine, but they are still responsible for a substantial amount of the suffering that Palestinians endure on a daily basis. Maybe Israel's actions are justified, maybe they aren't, but these aren't facts that can be easily glossed over.

Arabs certainly suffer in Israel and Gaza, but it's not because of Israel, rather their own culture. That's not to say Jews in Israel are completely innocent. I know there's Jews who resent Palestinians (I always slap myself when I use this word to refer to Arabs) who don't want to commit terrorist acts. BTW "occupying" is a modern political hyperbole term that essentially baseless. The Jews can't be occupying their own land.

There's nothing baseless about the Israeli occupation. The problem is that it's not their land. Borders aren't drawn on the battlefield - that's a principle that's been clearly codified in international law for over a century.
#418 Posted by thebest31406 (3323 posts) -

What do you hope to get out of this thread? is it pity? is it sympathy? What do you want us to say? The same crap everyone says but doesn't mean? "Oh how tragic how sad oh my gosh war is terrible". Only 2 factions can stop this whether they want to stop this or not, is up to them. Shall we convict Israel for collateral damage? Shall we condemn the Hamas members who use their families as meatshields. I don't understand what you want from this thread. Most us have already seen the pictures, we've already seen the tragedy. Do you know why this is not happening to Israel, because they protect their people, not use them as way to gain international favor and pity.

RadecSupreme
The majority of us feel for our fellow gamespot member but you're free to continue being the moral relativist ghoul that you are.
#419 Posted by PWSteal_Ldpinch (1208 posts) -

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]But then you can just set up camp anywhere you want and declare it for yourself.coolbeans90

Second ammendment to the New Rule: it's immoral to violate New Rule in order to revert previous infractions of New Rule.

Third ammendment to the New Rule: The New Rule is subordinate to existing property laws.

I think I'm going in circles. I'm gonna need beans to help sort this out. HELP ME BEANS.

LOL

HOLY, DIVINE RULE NUMBER 1: Jaysus fawkin' Christ, calm the phuck down. JUST STOP SHOOTING EACH OTHER when you aren't going to budge from your respective homes.

Rule 2: Work out the logistics on how to deal with the fact that people are going to live where they are now, or at least where they are reasonably well-established, of course, while observing HOLY, DIVINE RULE NUMBER 1.

Rule 3: People with similar cultural norms and common language within a continuous geographic region will be given civil authority to govern their respective region in accordance with the desires of the governed and without violating HOLY, DIVINE RULE NUMBER 1. Moreover, local governments will be responsible to ensure through their authoirty that there are no violations by their people of HOLY, DIVINE RULE NUMBER 1.

Rule 4: Repeat infractions of the HOLY, DIVINE RULE NUMBER 1 (3-strike-rule) will invariably result in divine intervention of Lady Liberty, who will annex everything.

Translation - Two-state solution. Maybe a three-state solution (separating the West Bank from Gaza). Governments get that Israel stays, and they have to stop idiots from blind-firing rockets in the general direction of Tel-Aviv. Israel needs to stop the whole expansionist settlement brouhaha, possibly pull some of them back.

Jerusalem cannot be resolved. Therefore it is to be evacuated and nuked.

If the sand people are unsuccessful in resolving their disputes, then they shall be resolved for them.

Or not, but we will say it very loudly.

The Beans Hath Spoken :P

#420 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
all hail
#421 Posted by PWSteal_Ldpinch (1208 posts) -

Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't so seamlessly drift between sarcasm/satire/hyperbole and actual opinion.

Oh the fvck with it.

coolbeans90
nah we get ya beans.
#422 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -

Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't so seamlessly drift between sarcasm/satire/hyperbole and actual opinion.

Oh the fvck with it.

coolbeans90
this is the internet son that's the entire purpose of this little exercise
#423 Posted by October_Tide (5396 posts) -

As bad as I feel that that many civilians died, I don't really have any animosity towards Israel. Hamas really needs to stop stirring the hornets nest. It serves no purpose and only results in Palestinians being killed.

#424 Posted by wis3boi (31112 posts) -

As bad as I feel that that many civilians died, I don't really have any animosity towards Israel. Hamas really needs to stop stirring the hornets nest. It serves no purpose and only results in Palestinians being killed.

October_Tide

it's basically like a midget poking a sleeping giant, and then the giant takes out a minigun, blows him away, burns the corpse, and dances on it while kicking it.

#425 Posted by RadecSupreme (4639 posts) -

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

What do you hope to get out of this thread? is it pity? is it sympathy? What do you want us to say? The same crap everyone says but doesn't mean? "Oh how tragic how sad oh my gosh war is terrible". Only 2 factions can stop this whether they want to stop this or not, is up to them. Shall we convict Israel for collateral damage? Shall we condemn the Hamas members who use their families as meatshields. I don't understand what you want from this thread. Most us have already seen the pictures, we've already seen the tragedy. Do you know why this is not happening to Israel, because they protect their people, not use them as way to gain international favor and pity.

thebest31406

The majority of us feel for our fellow gamespot member but you're free to continue being the moral relativist ghoul that you are.

Moral relativist ghoul? And it's good that you feel for him, my post was not directed at his specific position but more at the whole event in general. I don't know him so me trying to feel for him would be like trying to feel for any innocent stranger in danger. I wish him best of luck and safety but my wishes don't mean anything.

#426 Posted by October_Tide (5396 posts) -

[QUOTE="October_Tide"]

As bad as I feel that that many civilians died, I don't really have any animosity towards Israel. Hamas really needs to stop stirring the hornets nest. It serves no purpose and only results in Palestinians being killed.

wis3boi

it's basically like a midget poking a sleeping giant, and then the giant takes out a minigun, blows him away, burns the corpse, and dances on it while kicking it.

Lol:lol: interesting mental image.

#427 Posted by GrayF0X786 (3849 posts) -
#428 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150326 posts) -
Ugh, this whole thing is really terrible. I can't support either side, but I feel really bad for all of the innocent civilians that are being killed. . Commander-Gree
Not so innocent when you realize they put the governments in power......
#429 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150326 posts) -

.

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

New Rule: It's immoral in all circumstances to kick someone off the land they're parents were born on.

BossPerson

Ammendment to the New Rule: it's immoral to kick someone off the land they live in.

But then you can just set up camp anywhere you want and declare it for yourself.

That's kind of how the world works.......since forever.:|

#430 Posted by nunovlopes (2603 posts) -

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"] If you don't love your family, don't expect your enemy (who hates you) to. th3warr1or

That's twisted and dumb logic.

Too bad. That's reality. Don't like it, move to somewhere where reality doesn't have a monopoly on life.

And no, it's neither twisted, nor dumb. Nobody will ever love your family more than you love your own. If you don't, don't expect someone else to, much less someone who wants you dead.

No.

It IS twisted and dumb logic.

Would you say every Israeli soldier doesn't love their family because they go home, therefore putting their family at risk? Or every high-profile person in the world, who could be the target of a terrorist attack, doesn't lovetheir family because they go home, therefore putting their family at risk?

If a bunch of criminals take control of a house in any Western country, and make the people there hostages, are you in support of just bombing the house down? Or are you in support of the police going in on foot to try to take out the criminals while keeping the family alive?

The only reason why you bomb a house that has 1 target, while killing everyone there, is if you completely disregard the lives of the civillians present, and treat them as disposable. That's about it.

#431 Posted by nunovlopes (2603 posts) -

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="Jackc8"]

So what? 11 people were killed in a shantytown in Bangladesh, a bush crash in Egypt killed 50 children, a guy who used to be a mayor in Mexico was found beaten to death.

Or are we supposed to care about the Palestinians more because have they have parties in the streets on 9/11 to celebrate all those Americans getting killed? I certainly don't give a f*** about them. I hope they keep p***ing off the Israelis real good and get their whole damned territory levelled.

th3warr1or

A bus crash is an accident... As in no one caused it on purpose... not exactly the same thing...

A premature death is a premature death, regardless of cause.

Let. Me. Explain. Slowly.

An accident is just that, an accident, no one intended it to happen, it just did. A terrorist attack is not quite the same thing. Yes, both loss of lifes is sad, but one is directly the cause of someone's actions.

#432 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

Let. Me. Explain. Slowly.

An accident is just that, an accident, no one intended it to happen, it just did. A terrorist attack is not quite the same thing. Yes, both loss of lifes is sad, but one is directly the cause of someone's actions.nunovlopes

Courts of law clearly disagree, seeing as someone who kills someone through an accident can still be charged for murder. Different degree as intentional murder, but still murder nonetheless.

#433 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

No.

It IS twisted and dumb logic.

Would you say every Israeli soldier doesn't love their family because they go home, therefore putting their family at risk? Or every high-profile person in the world, who could be the target of a terrorist attack, doesn't lovetheir family because they go home, therefore putting their family at risk?

If a bunch of criminals take control of a house in any Western country, and make the people there hostages, are you in support of just bombing the house down? Or are you in support of the police going in on foot to try to take out the criminals while keeping the family alive?

The only reason why you bomb a house that has 1 target, while killing everyone there, is if you completely disregard the lives of the civillians present, and treat them as disposable. That's about it.nunovlopes

Actually I never argued that they care about the lives of that man's family. What I am saying however, is that in the middle of a conflict like this, yes it IS irresponsible to go home and endanger your whole family.

Enemy combatants, regardless of side, don't give a sh*t about your family. That is a fact. Whether it's the right thing or not, doesn't matter, because so what if its wrong? Does saying "What on earth dude I'm with my family" suddenly make the bomb dropping on your house become harmless? No.

So if the enemy doesn't care about killing YOUR family, YOU should care about the fact that you're putting your family at risk.

Every high-profile assassination target isn't doing the same thing because generally they have adequate protection. If they don't, yes it's irresponsible. No it's not "humane," but it sure as hell happened, and will continue to happen. That is what I'm saying.

Just because someone shouldn't do something doesn't mean they won't. If you have something to lose, you'd do well to protect it because your enemy sure as hell won't.

If you've taken steps to ensure your family's safety, then by all means, go home. The average Israeli soldier isn't on Hamas hitlist. They probably don't even know his name or where he lives. Netanyahu goes home. He's not endangering anyone. Barack Obama lives with his family, and he's well protected. So was George W Bush. In those instances, going home isn't selfish or irresponsible because they're betting on the fact that the enemy will fail in their attempt to kill them, rather than simply "not try."

Once again, if you don't like that, it's really just too bad for you. Sh*t happens.

#434 Posted by GrayF0X786 (3849 posts) -

whats sad is that these zionists still think God loves them and thinks he has chosen them amongst all people.

:lol:

#435 Posted by BossPerson (9434 posts) -

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]Let. Me. Explain. Slowly.

An accident is just that, an accident, no one intended it to happen, it just did. A terrorist attack is not quite the same thing. Yes, both loss of lifes is sad, but one is directly the cause of someone's actions.th3warr1or

Courts of law clearly disagree, seeing as someone who kills someone through an accident can still be charged for murder. Different degree as intentional murder, but still murder nonetheless.

manslaughter is not murder
#436 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]Let. Me. Explain. Slowly.

An accident is just that, an accident, no one intended it to happen, it just did. A terrorist attack is not quite the same thing. Yes, both loss of lifes is sad, but one is directly the cause of someone's actions.BossPerson

Courts of law clearly disagree, seeing as someone who kills someone through an accident can still be charged for murder. Different degree as intentional murder, but still murder nonetheless.

manslaughter is not murder

Accidentally killing someone in a bar fight is considered second degree murder, not manslaughter though. Regardless of who started the fight.

#437 Posted by BossPerson (9434 posts) -

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

Courts of law clearly disagree, seeing as someone who kills someone through an accident can still be charged for murder. Different degree as intentional murder, but still murder nonetheless.

th3warr1or

manslaughter is not murder

Accidentally killing someone in a bar fight is considered second degree murder, not manslaughter though. Regardless of who started the fight.

you dont "accidentally" kill someone in a fight. Yes, that is second degree murder, but it is not considered a real accident. Killing someone from driving drunk, that is an accident. Getting angry at someone on the street for no reason and running them over? Not an accident.
#438 Posted by wis3boi (31112 posts) -

whats sad is that these zionists still think God loves them and thinks he has chosen them amongst all people.

:lol:

GrayF0X786

whats sad is that you think the sky wizard picked you instead

#439 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]manslaughter is not murderBossPerson

Accidentally killing someone in a bar fight is considered second degree murder, not manslaughter though. Regardless of who started the fight.

you dont "accidentally" kill someone in a fight. Yes, that is second degree murder, but it is not considered a real accident. Killing someone from driving drunk, that is an accident. Getting angry at someone on the street for no reason and running them over? Not an accident.

Well the latter example is obviously intentional. You want to kill him. But if you got into a scuffle with someone, and then during that struggle he falls and breaks his neck, you're going away for life. Even if he swung first. Maybe if you've got a brilliant lawyer you'd be able to downgrade it to voluntary manslaughter, but otherwise it's still second degree murder even though you didn't intend to kill him.

#440 Posted by BossPerson (9434 posts) -
[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

Accidentally killing someone in a bar fight is considered second degree murder, not manslaughter though. Regardless of who started the fight.

th3warr1or
you dont "accidentally" kill someone in a fight. Yes, that is second degree murder, but it is not considered a real accident. Killing someone from driving drunk, that is an accident. Getting angry at someone on the street for no reason and running them over? Not an accident.

Well the latter example is obviously intentional. You want to kill him. But if you got into a scuffle with someone, and then during that struggle he falls and breaks his neck, you're going away for life. Even if he swung first. Maybe if you've got a brilliant lawyer you'd be able to downgrade it to voluntary manslaughter, but otherwise it's still second degree murder even though you didn't intend to kill him.

honestly, I think it would be manslaughter in that case unless your lawyer is bad.
#441 Posted by kingkong0124 (8710 posts) -

So...Egypt says Israel will halt "aggression" within hours. This is good news for both parties.

#442 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -
[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]you dont "accidentally" kill someone in a fight. Yes, that is second degree murder, but it is not considered a real accident. Killing someone from driving drunk, that is an accident. Getting angry at someone on the street for no reason and running them over? Not an accident. BossPerson
Well the latter example is obviously intentional. You want to kill him. But if you got into a scuffle with someone, and then during that struggle he falls and breaks his neck, you're going away for life. Even if he swung first. Maybe if you've got a brilliant lawyer you'd be able to downgrade it to voluntary manslaughter, but otherwise it's still second degree murder even though you didn't intend to kill him.

honestly, I think it would be manslaughter in that case unless your lawyer is bad.

Maybe. I'm not going to attempt to find out for myself though. Anyway, we're getting a little off tangent here.
#443 Posted by helwa1988 (2078 posts) -
People need to look at the numbers. More palestians die during these conflicts than Israelis do. To make it a fair fight. Palestine should be allowed to have the same weapons Israel does and allow Palestine to become its own state. People forget that what Israel is today was all Palestine prior to 1948. So who is oppressing who?
#444 Posted by th3warr1or (20640 posts) -

People need to look at the numbers. More palestians die during these conflicts than Israelis do. To make it a fair fight. Palestine should be allowed to have the same weapons Israel does and allow Palestine to become its own state. People forget that what Israel is today was all Palestine prior to 1948. So who is oppressing who?helwa1988

War is hardly ever fair. Moreover, the reason there are only 3 Israeli deaths isn't due to lack of trying by Hamas. Just because majority of Hamas rockets have been intercepted by the Iron Dome doesn't mean Hamas hasn't been intentionally aiming at civilian populations in Israel.

Hamas rockets are being fired at Israeli civilian populations. You could say the same thing about Israel's bombs and their target of inhabited civilian neighborhoods, but unlike the Israel, Hamas is intentionally targeting civilians in Israel to do the most damage.

Make no mistake, Hamas IS trying to kill Israeli civilians. Keyword here is trying.

#445 Posted by rastotm (1370 posts) -

This war will be used as a example in the future, mainly in the subject: How stupid humankind used to deal with terrorism and extremism.

#446 Posted by helwa1988 (2078 posts) -
[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="helwa1988"] War is hardly ever fair. Moreover, the reason there are only 3 Israeli deaths isn't due to lack of trying by Hamas. Just because majority of Hamas rockets have been intercepted by the Iron Dome doesn't mean Hamas hasn't been intentionally aiming at civilian populations in Israel.

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"][QUOTE="helwa1988"]People need to look at the numbers. More palestians die during these conflicts than Israelis do. To make it a fair fight. Palestine should be allowed to have the same weapons Israel does and allow Palestine to become its own state. People forget that what Israel is today was all Palestine prior to 1948. So who is oppressing who?

War is hardly ever fair. Moreover, the reason there are only 3 Israeli deaths isn't due to lack of trying by Hamas. Just because majority of Hamas rockets have been intercepted by the Iron Dome doesn't mean Hamas hasn't been intentionally aiming at civilian populations in Israel.

And I never said Hamas wasn't aiming. But my point was that Israel does more damage to Palestine than Palestine does to Israel . Maybe if Israel would allow Palestine to become its own state Palestinians wouldn't hate them so much. Israel started the fire and then they get pissed when Palestine lashes out. If someone was blocking food and supplies into your country. Setting up settlements and stealing land all the time( even though the UN has told them to stop) you'd be pretty pissed too. I'm not saying Hamas tactics are correct because I don't think they are right. But I understand why they lash out.
#447 Posted by GrayF0X786 (3849 posts) -

[QUOTE="th3warr1or"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]manslaughter is not murderBossPerson

Accidentally killing someone in a bar fight is considered second degree murder, not manslaughter though. Regardless of who started the fight.

you dont "accidentally" kill someone in a fight. Yes, that is second degree murder, but it is not considered a real accident. Killing someone from driving drunk, that is an accident. Getting angry at someone on the street for no reason and running them over? Not an accident.

killing someone while being drunk is no accident.