OK, 1972 would be Bloody Sunday, so more than 30-35 years.

I thought Sunday, was Bloody Sunday

"But Syria is expected to be angelic, naturally."

How is expecting a state NOT to kill its own people expecting them to be angelic???

...Isn't...isn't that the POINT of a state, the very, very basic point, security?

You kind of undercut that when you kill your own people and thus give them a LACK of security?

Yet there is no Palestinian state, because Israel won't allow one to exist.

Therefore the Palestinians being killed are residents of territory controlled by Israel.

Therefore Israel is their state.

Therefore Israel is killing its own people.


Tell me where I'm wrong, obiwanobiwan?

"Nobody picks on abgemacht or bo_sox or Octavious..."

I pick on bo_sox every opportunity I get, because I don't like cheats. Just for the record.

If there were any more straw men in this argument, there would cease to be birds on earth.

Please, elaborate on that, TMOW?

"" "Nobody picks on abgemacht or bo_sox or Octavious...""

Uhhh....I'm an equal opportunity picker. I'd even pick their noses given the opportunity. Admittedly, I don't pick on Abge much because he's kinda cute and I like him and stuff like that...and Octa...is he knew here?

"How is expecting a state NOT to kill its own people expecting them to be angelic???"

The "own people" they are killing are terrorist murderers, mostly from foreign countries (like Iraq & Libya, two places 'Merica helped 'liberate).

We've gone over this. You keep repeating yourself.

We pick on bo_sux_dix all the time.

"Tell me where I'm wrong, obiwanobiwan?"

They don't consider Israel their state (the land, yes, the state of Israel itself, no),

Israel just entertained months of negotiations AGAIN on the statehood issue, and BOTH sides have stonewalled that at different points on different issues at different times,

When Israel DID allow Gazan elections they were rewarded with...

Hamas--clearly, that's what Israel would allow were the Palestinians "their own people," electing a party dedicated to destroying their state and people.

They push for Palestinian statehood,
They asked the UN to be considered as such,
They ask the international community to be considered as such,
They elect a group dedicated to destroying a state they see as their sworn enemy...

Would you really elect a group dedicated to the destruction of your own state if you considered yourself part of that state?

Israel is not their state, nor do they wish it to be, at least not as Israel.

A minority may wish it to be, but as we're talking about Gaza and Hamas and not that minority within the Israeli mainland itself (or the West Bank, for that matter), Israel is NOT killing its own people, it's killing the people of Hamas, who are in Gaza, which as time and again asserted that it wishes to be "their people" about as much as Putin wishes to be a member of the Tea Party.

"The "own people" they are killing are terrorist murderers, mostly from foreign countries (like Iraq & Libya, two places 'Merica helped 'liberate)."

I get it--

So, when I claim Israel's targets are terrorists, you're allowed to cry foul, but when you claim Assad's targets are terrorists, then that works perfectly fine.

(We'll leave the fun irony that Hezbollah IS a terrorist organization formed by and from another country.)

"Would you really elect a group dedicated to the destruction of your own state if you considered yourself part of that state?"

The ISIS is calling for its own state. Indeed, you posted an article about that very thing. So by your logic, the ISIS is not Syria's "own people". So that line of argument fails completely.

"So, when I claim Israel's targets are terrorists, you're allowed to cry foul, but when you claim Assad's targets are terrorists, then that works perfectly fine."

No, unlike you, I consistently oppose terrorism. I oppose Palestinian statehood as an unworkable framework for peace. I believe Israel is well within its rights to target *terrorists* located within their borders. Unlike you I do not however believe that gives it carte blanche to attack civilians in a form of collective punishment. Nor do I think the excuse of Hamas or Hizballah works to absolve Israel of all of its actions. And I essentially don't believe that Israel gets to be held to a much lower standard than every other country.

Israeli troops entered Halhul after the youths' bodies were discovered, blockading some areas.

Soldiers raided the homes of two Hamas members named as suspects - Marwan Qawasmeh, and Amer Abu Aisha - and detonated explosives.

Hanan Ashrawi, a senior Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) official, told the BBC that Israel's response was heavy handed.

"You cannot sort of use every development like this in order to punish a whole nation, which is what Israel has been doing," she said.

"In the month of June alone, 14 Palestinians were killed... by the Israeli occupation."

@Jamiet, on strawmen,
Everybody keeps on misstating what the other says, then argue against that misrepresentation. Assad angelic, everything that Israel does is by definition acceptable, all strawman arguments. Frankly I actually don't think your positions are that far apart.

Can you provide a summary of what Obiwan's position actually is? Part of the problem with invoking 'strawman' accusations here is that it assumes that everybody has a coherent and clear position from post to post with which to argue against.

@Obi- "assume Hamas-until-proven-not" do we really have to argue about the presumption of innocence in the 21st century?

Once you defend the right of countries or organisations to trample on people's basic rights then you have to accept that others countries / organisations and individuals will also trample on those rights. Trust me you don't want to go there.

I don't think a violent response by Israel is the answer, no, I actually said that before you tried to put those words into my mouth. I see humanity on both sides and I do not want to see it destroyed. Much more than we can say of either Jamiett or Putin.

I mean does anyone actually fucking read my responses on this topic?

"I mean does anyone actually fucking read my responses on this topic?"

Yeah I 'read your responses'. Your first instinct was to attack Jamie for not showing sufficient remorse about the kidnapping and deaths of three Israelis, including juvenile whining about the description of 16 years vs 13 year olds. Jamie's point was that there was no evidence of Hamas's culpability yet Israel went on a rampage of collective punishment. But naturally you escape the burden of having to show immediate and full throated remorse for Palestinian deaths and suffering. Because nothing ever applies to you.

You try and cover your tracks by next invoking the usual "both sides are to blame" routine, puffing up your anti-Netanyahu credentials as if that somehow makes a difference.

That has about as much credibility as your so-called 'reversal' on the atomic bombing of Japanese civilians while simultaneously claiming that Japanese civilians deserve no sympathy from anybody...because they haven't groveled enough for your liking.

same old putin, this time I don't care.

To put it from my point of view:

Jamiett treats Israelis as nameless, faceless oppressors, not humans, as he never has. What I was pointing out was his callous inability to even consider that his only reaction to the killings of three teenagers is to portray them as nothing other than a justification for latent Israeli brutality. I don't see my point that he tried to portray a Palestinian teenager as a boy, thereby making israelis child killers, yet portraying Israeli teenagers as mature young men thereby absolving the killers of the Israelis that distinction. I hardly think it's juvenile, in fact I think it's rather revealing.

I also think its unbelievably revealing the tap dance routine Jamiett insists on playing around the teens. The murder of the teens is not wrong, or reprehensible, but instead it's not not sad, or it's sad because all deaths are sad. In other words the murder of three healthy israeli boys, likely for their Israeli identity, is just as sad as a 70 year old plumber dropping dead of a heart attack. Sure, I'm sure this is partyl Jamiett's bravado and desire in the heat of an argument to absolve Palestinians of evil doing in order to make Israelis as all the more brutal and oppressive etc. but then again is that not part of the problem in the first place? I believe so.

I didn't know that insisting that the murder of three Israelis is an evil act constitutes a "both sides have blame routine." I figure that is normal humanity, huh.

Finally I don't see what Japan and WWII has anything to do with this, but I'm flattered that you can recite my past arguments. Maybe that will help you get a job in academia some day above the adjunct grade (or has that day arrived much to the detriment of our college students?)

I don't see how my point as Juvenile it should read. I do in fact see my point.

Typical Santa bullshit.

This sanctimony might have some credibility if Israel hadn't bombed Lebanon into the stone age in 2006 because of a kidnapping of a single individual. People are fed up with this kind of disproportionate aggression. But I guess we're all supposed to express equivalent outrage about a kidnapping and the utter destruction of an entire country.

"I didn't know that insisting that the murder of three Israelis is an evil act constitutes a "both sides have blame routine." I figure that is normal humanity, huh."

Of course you don't. Three Israeli lives are worth the same as the annihilation of an entire people. They're equal outrages. This is just 'normal humanity'. Because you see humanity on both sides, albeit on a 1:1000 ratio. That's why Jamie's comments are so outrageous to you. He feels outrage commensurate with the outrage committed. You feel no outrage unless you want to bash some enemy of the United States.

"Jamiett treats Israelis as nameless, faceless oppressors, not humans, as he never has."

Don't make me laugh. To you every state not named Israel or the United States is full of nameless, faceless oppressors whom you see no obligation to see a situation from the point of view of their lives and their security. You're on record completely trashing, demonizing entire nations like the French and the Japanese. No effort whatsoever to see people as human beings.

"Finally I don't see what Japan and WWII has anything to do with this, but I'm flattered that you can recite my past arguments. Maybe that will help you get a job in academia some day above the adjunct grade (or has that day arrived much to the detriment of our college students?)"

Obligatory resume dick wagging. Thanks for being so predictable. Of course you don't see how your collectivist hatred of Japanese people is relevant, because that would mean acknowledging you're full of shit when you claim that you don't see entire nations as faceless, nameless oppressors, but rather see the "humanity on both sides" of conflicts.

"I do in fact see my point."

Shocking news: Santa agrees with himself.

"This sanctimony might have some credibility if Israel hadn't bombed Lebanon into the stone age in 2006 because of a kidnapping of a single individual. People are fed up with this kind of disproportionate aggression. But I guess we're all supposed to express equivalent outrage about a kidnapping and the utter destruction of an entire country."

How about when you create a thread about the murder of three teenagers don't exclusively treat their real, senseless murders as some propaganda mechanization by bloodthirsty politicians. Too much to ask?

"Of course you don't. Three Israeli lives are worth the same as the annihilation of an entire people. They're equal outrages. This is just 'normal humanity'. Because you see humanity on both sides, albeit on a 1:1000 ratio. That's why Jamie's comments are so outrageous to you. He feels outrage commensurate with the outrage committed. You feel no outrage unless you want to bash some enemy of the United States. "

I think the murder of three innocent teenagers is a tragedy, and should be treated as such no matter the context. Honestly, is Nigee truly the voice of reason in this threat. Really?

"Don't make me laugh. To you every state not named Israel or the United States is full of nameless, faceless oppressors whom you see no obligation to see a situation from the point of view of their lives and their security. You're on record completely trashing, demonizing entire nations like the French and the Japanese. No effort whatsoever to see people as human beings. "

No I don't but then again I appreciate your recall of my past arguments. Some you cited that are about 4 years old.

"Obligatory resume dick wagging. Thanks for being so predictable. Of course you don't see how your collectivist hatred of Japanese people is relevant, because that would mean acknowledging you're full of shit when you claim that you don't see entire nations as faceless, nameless oppressors, but rather see the "humanity on both sides" of conflicts. "

I don't collectively hate the Japanese. I have stated that I think their post war demands for apologies are laughably hypocritical based on their own bastardization of war memory, but beside a momentary bout of unreasonable elan on this forum or a typical Putin misquote, I don't believe I ever stated anything that cast Japanese as nameless faceless oppressors. Nor do I believe that even the members German state that slaughtered my family.

""I do in fact see my point."

Shocking news: Santa agrees with himself. "

Is this a problem?

@ obiwanobiwan: "Israel is NOT killing its own people, it's killing the people of Hamas"

No. Wrong. Bullshit. As I have evidence, they are killing and maiming Palestinian people INDISCIMINATELY. They are supressing the entire Palestinian population, whether Hamas members/supporters or not.

"Israel is not their state, nor do they wish it to be, at least not as Israel"

What is their state, then? "Palestine" does not exist. Some support a two-state solution but Israel does not and is blocking any attempts to form a Palestinian state. Do you conclude, therefore, that no state-level actor killing a Palestinian can be accused of "killing their own people" and therefore the killing of innocent Palestinian non-combatants by Israel is just fine?

* evidenced

"do we really have to argue about the presumption of innocence in the 21st century?"

When the entire Middle East still operates like it's the 12th century, you mean?