|Rodents of Unusual Size |
"I've never met anyone who doesn't think we should give aid to Gaza."
He's obviously never been to the U.S.
Do you mean "in favor of Israel" or do you hang out with horrible people?
They're not horrible people, they just...well okay, some are horrible people, but most just believe what they're told. I know a girl who cried for the Katrina victims and volunteered in rebuilding, but considers the media even mentioning Palestinian deaths to be treasonous.
Why are Britian's old men so much more awesome than ours?
One of their old men is Tom Baker, and another one is John Cleese.
Even if all of Britain's remaining old men were coma patients, this would tip the awesome scales in Britian's favor.
Good Idea old man. Lets give our money to terrorists.
That would explain why you're OK with our sending money and weapons to the Saudis, I'm sure.
The people in the Gaza will continue to launch rockets at Israel, they'll continue to hide in schools and hospitals, and they'll continue to break cease fire agreements. They are clearly the bad guys and I hate how the media demonizes Israel.
Sure kids are dieing in Gaza, but that is a price the terrorists are willing to pay just to pop some shots off at Israel. The Israelis don't want to kill civilians, but they also must defend their homeland.
Cpt Clean Language, I don't like our dealings with the Saudis, but right now we must to fuel America.
Futurebot, Orton sucks.
This is a very bunk argument and, in fact, the only one people are using to defend the warmongering in Israel. This reflects a total lack of ideas. To justify bombing schools, hospitals and UN safe zones by alleging that Hamas leaders are hiding among civilians is absolutely morally bankrupt. Would you chide the same cowardice on Churchill and British members of parliament sharing bunkers with civilians during world war two? The value of eradicating a military or political target is never worth more than a civilian life, not to a civilized person Only a monster would believe that sacrificing 8, 80 or 800 civilians will help ensure their safety in the future. This is clear cut racism, believing that the safety of a few dozen Israeli citizens a year, who have died or might die at the hands of Hamas, outweigh hundreds of Palestinian casualties.
-If you take an eye for an eye, then the whole world becomes blind.
If Israel doesn't want to kill civilians, maybe they should stop, then.
Well if that's the proper attitude then we wouldn't have won world war 2. "Can't bomb Berlin, might be children there. Can't bomb Tokyo, might be civilians."
A nation needs to look out for the protection of its civilians first. I know its harsh (I've seen Grave of the Fireflies), but collateral damage must occur to defeat terror.
This is, again, utter bollocks. The United States in world war two was very capable winning without terrorizing the civilian populace. Technically it had already won the war against Japan before they dropped nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Tokyo. The Japanese had been offering their surrender, but the U.S. did not heed these calls for peace.
As for protecting your citizens by terrorizing the other side's civilians, this is, again, bullshit and, again, racist for implying that one nation's civilian population deserves freedom from terror more than the other side's; that a professional army bombing and killing innocent people is somehow _not_ terror. There is absolutely no difference between the two when you're on the receiving end of inhuman violence. If you can't see that or accept it, you are a truly pitiful person with no humanity in your soul.
This man is awesome for SO many reasons.
I like how, after yelling and pointing at the lady, "People will DIE because of the BBC's decision!" he sounds kind of apologetic when he says, "That's the truth--I have to tell you." He's so intrinsically polite that he actually apologizes after answering her question truthfully.
|The Mothership |
Love me some Tony.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|