Jump to content


Photo

Continuation. Are jews terrorists.


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#41 Templar

Templar

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 09:27 PM

Its not necessarily necessary, but I'm sure you heard of human shields.

To my way of thinking, voluntary human shields are taking part in the fight---actively aiding and abetting insurgents on the battlefield. The same holds true for the Pro-Palestinian "peace" activists who tried to use those flotillas to bring weapons and supplies to the Islamic terrorists in the Gaza Strip back in 2010... If a civilian aids a military force on the battlefield in any way except succoring the wounded, then they lose their civilian status and become active participants in the engagement.

#42 sal

sal

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 10:43 PM

To my way of thinking, voluntary human shields are taking part in the fight---actively aiding and abetting insurgents on the battlefield. The same holds true for the Pro-Palestinian "peace" activists who tried to use those flotillas to bring weapons and supplies to the Islamic terrorists in the Gaza Strip back in 2010... If a civilian aids a military force on the battlefield in any way except succoring the wounded, then they lose their civilian status and become active participants in the engagement.

How about involuntary human shields. Like those that purposely shoot rockets from schools or hospitals.

#43 ijs

ijs

    Hocker

  • Members
  • 151 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:35 AM

Well here is the thing -- because such examples like reparations DO exist, should we not draw such parallels?


We certainly can. But the mere existence of reparations is insufficient to justify them as morally required. They can be politically necessary or desirable, but not necessarily morally required. That's kind of like saying that something exists, and therefore it should exist, which does not logically follow.

My issue as you stated, is the fact that we ignore current* situations like the current Native American land and policy related issues and focus on other countries (and these land related disputes can be seen as recently as 2009).


Except that, with the second of that sentence, you're losing me again. First of all, we need to recognize the difference between the responsibility of a past generation for its wrongs, versus the responsibility of the present generation to fix the still-existing and -performed wrongs – in no way the same thing at all. Second, the existence of a local problem does not mean it should not be addressed internationally in other countries, especially where theirs are far worse and no longer exist here. Third, a country's moral status today cannot reasonably be determined by its past conduct, especially when none from the relevant generation is still alive. We do not punish the British for our Revolution or the War of 1812; Germany or Japan for WWI or WWII; or even the southern states for their conduct in the American Civil War. Indeed, it would be absurd to do so (especially considering one could escape that punishment merely by moving somewhere else).

I ... feel that the US is in the hot seat for a lot of things right now and I do think we should be fixing our own garden before planting trees elsewhere.


Planting trees is never a futile endeavor, and the tree grows irrespective of the characteristics (real or perceived) of the planter.

I should have figured you were a lawyer by some of your responses ijs lol!


Only some? I must be slipping … ;)

--------------------------------------------------

I'm sure you heard of human shields.


Indeed, it's absurd to blame one party for killing the human shield, rather than the user of that “shield” in the first place. In that argument, one who chooses to use a human shield automatically wins, and is even perceived as morally justified in doing so! I've actually had that argument, forced my interlocutor into so asserting (it was astonishingly easier to do that I'd have thought), and he didn't see anything wrong with that! It boggles the mind – even for those, like mine, had already been boggled previously.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Chaim Yosef ben Yaakov Avraham

חיים יוסף בך יעקב אברהם

#44 paganyid

paganyid

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:45 AM

We've been over this.
Engage the hostile military, and people who actively oppose you on the battlefield.

For instance, does the state of Israel survive by engaging armed Arab insurgents, or does it hold together by slaughtering Arab non-combatants?
Jews usually say that it's the former. If that's true, then it would seem that killing civilians is not neccessary to defeat a military opponent.


I think this stuff is amazing. Right NOW, the Syrian govt is slaughtering hundreds of innocent civilians. This a$$hole hypocrite is jabbering about jewish slaughtering of Arab non-combatants! I'm glad Templar thinks of himself as moral. That makes one of us.

#45 sal

sal

    Gabbai

  • Members
  • 843 posts

Posted 13 July 2012 - 04:08 PM

Except that, with the second of that sentence, you're losing me again. First of all, we need to recognize the difference between the responsibility of a past generation for its wrongs, versus the responsibility of the present generation to fix the still-existing and -performed wrongs – in no way the same thing at all. Second, the existence of a local problem does not mean it should not be addressed internationally in other countries, especially where theirs are far worse and no longer exist here. Third, a country's moral status today cannot reasonably be determined by its past conduct, especially when none from the relevant generation is still alive. We do not punish the British for our Revolution or the War of 1812; Germany or Japan for WWI or WWII; or even the southern states for their conduct in the American Civil War. Indeed, it would be absurd to do so (especially considering one could escape that punishment merely by moving somewhere else).


I'm not sure if we are disagreeing on this issue. I would like to clarify. If my father stole a dollar and I inherited that dollar, I believe it is my moral obligation to give it back to its rightful owner. If the owner died I should return it to his heirs. Agree or disagree?

Indeed, it's absurd to blame one party for killing the human shield, rather than the user of that “shield” in the first place. In that argument, one who chooses to use a human shield automatically wins, and is even perceived as morally justified in doing so! I've actually had that argument, forced my interlocutor into so asserting (it was astonishingly easier to do that I'd have thought), and he didn't see anything wrong with that! It boggles the mind – even for those, like mine, had already been boggled previously.


It's pretty amazing what type of logic education (Brainwashing) can create.
Actually the correct term would be conditioning not educating. As the latter is a mental exercise.

#46 Rivka5768

Rivka5768

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:41 PM

Alright. Wow. I am so overwhelmed. Well.....may I ask what the heck is going on with this Muslim vs Jew ideology?



#47 Rivka5768

Rivka5768

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 12:52 PM


I'm not sure if we are disagreeing on this issue. I would like to clarify. If my father stole a dollar and I inherited that dollar, I believe it is my moral obligation to give it back to its rightful owner. If the owner died I should return it to his heirs. Agree or disagree?



It's pretty amazing what type of logic education (Brainwashing) can create.
Actually the correct term would be conditioning not educating. As the latter is a mental exercise.


my response is exactly what you said, which I have highlighted in bold. Something nasty is going on in this world. What is happening in Israel? I 

I had a dream right. In this dream Israel took over some Mosque in Jerusalem. I didn't know the significance of this Mosque when I had the dream so I've been doing some research. Two years worth. 

Now I am sitting here wondering. Has G-d given Israel back to the Jews? Where is this Messiah? Why is my life governed by a deeply religious and political war that is across the world from me? Why am I having dreams about it? 

Most of all, while everyone has their ###'s up around their shoulders being so self righteous that human beings of all nations can raise a sword to a complete strangers neck.......BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THE BIBLE SAYS SO............OR QURAN.........OR TORAH.

So from what I gathered there is supposed to be something called a "Messiah" coming to rebuild this temple after Israel kills the Palestinians, takes their Temple, pisses off other Nation and causes a 3rd World War. I mean if you pay attention to current events, things seem tense...or is it just me lol.

So after this Temple is taken, does this Messiah
(don't know what that is exactly. My parents told me it was a man named Jesus but I've always thought they're stupid.)
just magically appear out of the sky. Has some man
already claimed to be the heir of David?
Where is he? Because without him here I don't quite understand what the heck is going on.
Unless of course mankind is trying to force G-ds hand. Which is only asking for trouble imo.




Oh and not to mention....from my experiences growing up with Christians...........people tend to keep worshiping idols. Ya kno, trees, cows, other people. We should really cut that out.



#48 Rivka5768

Rivka5768

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 63 posts

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:03 PM

And to answer the OP's question.....I think mankind is terrorists. Doesn't matter what nation you belong to. Doesn't matter what religion you belong to. If you're a human being, you're a terrorist.

War is a scary thing and there isn't much empathy in war. Yet if you try and react to any situation the best way possible, then that's all you can do.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users