Originally Posted by senojekips

Yep,... about as crazy as blaming the Palestinians for damage to their aggressor whilst trying to defend or regain what is actually theirs.

RayManKiller3's remark is not crazy. In Belgium we are not alowed to defend our property. I'll give an example. A couple of years ago a woman (national champion in a martial arts discipline) kicked a man, who was coming up the stairs in her property, back to where he came from and called the police. To here amazement they took here to the police station. The reason was, she attacked a man that, at that moment, didn't steal anything. His only crime was being in her house without permission.
Laws differ from country to country and must be obeyed, even if we think they are crazy.
I also like to correct your quote:
"trying to defend or regain what is actually theirs." must be "trying to defend or regain what they think is theirs."

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Laws differ from country to country and must be obeyed, even if we think they are crazy.

I think that you can safely scratch that excuse off your list. I found these photos of some of the last group of idiots who tried using it in defence of Crimes against Humanity.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

I also like to correct your quote:
"trying to defend or regain what is actually theirs." must be "trying to defend or regain what they think is theirs."

Yeah,... obviously you never read yesterday's Tidbit. Which will tell you that even ardent Zionists will on occasions admit that my statement was absolutely correct.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech. 1 Day Ago 04:03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And here's today's Tidbit also relating to the Palestinian ownership of the land:
"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come, and we have stolen their country.Why would they accept that?"
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.[/quote]

Yeah,... don't bother answering,... we already know your reply, "this was actually said by anyone, nor was it in their diary".

Originally Posted by senojekips

Yep,... about as crazy as blaming the Palestinians for damage to their aggressor whilst trying to defend or regain what is actually theirs.

No, this is different. I want Israel out of the 1967 bordered Palestine, while you want all of the lands to be given to Palestine. That is the thing we disagree with, I don't try to defend Israel's terrorism or attacking of Palestine, but you try to defend Palestine actions against Israel. I don't care what the situation is, you do not purposely aim for civillians... When you resort to that, negotiations rightfully should be turned off.

So I agree with U.S and Israel on not negotiating with terrorists. Just like how the U.S knocked down Afghanistan because the Taliban were haboring them (they not necessarily were responsible except the fact Al Qaeda staged their 9/11 attack from there). Everyone in the Hamas region is therefore hostile because it is ruled by a terrorist organization (its on the terror list).

If we were back in the 1930s and we seen Israels terrorism (which were mostly aimed at militants and the military), I would be against them as I am against Palestine. I don't believe in "eye for an eye" so I am not going to accept your excuse of "Israel started the terrorism" to back the Palestinians plight.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I think that you can safely scratch that excuse off your list. I found these photos of some of the last group of idiots who tried using it in defence of Crimes against Humanity.

I think your missing his point and kind of being a smart butt on that one. I think he does mean that only laws that are not against humanity should be followed.

You have to follow what your commanders say unless it is an act against a higher up or humanity (genocide for one). Country laws do not overrule morality (this depends on what the majority thinks is "moral" at the time).

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

I think your missing his point and kind of being a smart butt on that one. I think he does mean that only laws that are not against humanity should be followed.

You have to follow what your commanders say unless it is an act against a higher up or humanity (genocide for one). Country laws do not overrule morality (this depends on what the majority thinks is "moral" at the time).

Smart butt??.... is it that you are naturally stupid, just don't understand what is being discussed, or are you just trying to be obtuse.

Firstly we have already shown earlier that morality is not something that you can just change to suit your views. If this were so, there would be no "morality", as everyone would claim that their actions were morally correct "in their opinion".

Secondly, this discussion is not about "state or federal laws" but, crimes against humanity. If your opinion were correct, we could never have charged most war criminals, as they were nearly always obeying laws that were quite legal in their own country at that time. How many times do you have to be told these things?

This has all been posted before, as have answers to your previous statement in your Post #93. In future I will not be re-answering things that you are either too lazy, brain washed or "thick" to remember.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Firstly we have already shown earlier that morality is not something that you can just change to suit your views. If this were so, there would be no "morality", as everyone would claim that their actions were morally correct "in their opinion".

Secondly, this discussion is not about "state or federal laws" but, crimes against humanity. If your opinion were correct, we could never have charged most war criminals, as they were nearly always obeying laws that were quite legal in their own country at that time. How many times do you have to be told these things?

I was arguing the point of which humanity overrule laws, so I don't see how you came to your conclusion on that last paragraph. With my opinions, they would be charged the same way they were charged in history.

"I think that you can safely scratch that excuse off your list. I found these photos of some of the last group of idiots who tried using it in defence of Crimes against Humanity." - Seno

This is what you said. My reply was saying how laws should be followed as long as it do not go against humanity; basically, I was protecting his statement as still valid in the correct situation. Crimes against humantiy can not be backed by laws as you said, so his statement is still valid. If he replies and say laws should be followed no matter what, then you would be correct with that statement and I would apologize. At the moment, i think you dug deeper in his statement than should have.



I already know the top part of what you said. The whole arguement of mines when I talked about morality was because you were saying he lacked morality. I was showing you how false it was and did in fact state that there are "standards of morality" in place for which the majority at that time believe is moral. Unless he said something that went against morality (which so far he didn't to my knowledge), then you can state he has no morals.

He is defending Israel's right to exist vs Palestines (he do not agree Palestine should be uprooted though), whether this is moral or not have yet to be proven on both.

We are arguing because in every instance that Israel is brought up, you feel the urge to demonize them, despite Palestine doing the same thing. I know you want Israel to feel the pressure, but you shouldn't be completely biased... I disagree with 2 major things that you state so far:

Palestine should use every method, including terrorism to fight off occupiers

Israel should be removed from Palestine and settled somewhere else

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

I disagree with 2 major things that you state so far:

Palestine should use every method, including terrorism to fight off occupiers

Israel should be removed from Palestine and settled somewhere else

Quick question would you feel the same if it were your land?

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

I was arguing the point of which humanity overrule laws, so I don't see how you came to your conclusion on that last paragraph. With my opinions, they would be charged the same way they were charged in history.



This is what you said. My reply was saying how laws should be followed as long as it do not go against humanity; basically, I was protecting his statement as still valid in the correct situation. Crimes against humantiy can not be backed by laws as you said, so his statement is still valid. If he replies and say laws should be followed no matter what, then you would be correct with that statement and I would apologize. At the moment, i think you dug deeper in his statement than should have.



I already know the top part of what you said. The whole arguement of mines when I talked about morality was because you were saying he lacked morality. I was showing you how false it was and did in fact state that there are "standards of morality" in place for which the majority at that time believe is moral. Unless he said something that went against morality (which so far he didn't to my knowledge), then you can state he has no morals.

He is defending Israel's right to exist vs Palestines (he do not agree Palestine should be uprooted though), whether this is moral or not have yet to be proven on both.

We are arguing because in every instance that Israel is brought up, you feel the urge to demonize them, despite Palestine doing the same thing. I know you want Israel to feel the pressure, but you shouldn't be completely biased... I disagree with 2 major things that you state so far:

Palestine should use every method, including terrorism to fight off occupiers

Israel should be removed from Palestine and settled somewhere else

I am not even going to attempt to answer this drivel. As well as misquoting me, and just guessing at what others "think", it has all been answered several times previously. I'm also not interested in what you "think", I am stating the facts as they stand.

Just read what people say,... not what you would like them to have said. If this answer is any indication, you appear to be totally unable to express what you think yourself,... let alone what others might be thinking.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Yeah,... obviously you never read yesterday's Tidbit. Which will tell you that even ardent Zionists will on occasions admit that my statement was absolutely correct.

Quote:
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech. 1 Day Ago 04:03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And here's today's Tidbit also relating to the Palestinian ownership of the land:
"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come, and we have stolen their country.Why would they accept that?"
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

Yeah,... don't bother answering,... we already know your reply, "this was actually said by anyone, nor was it in their diary".

What's wrong with Ben Gurion's quotes? He does not give his point of view but the Palestinian one. How they see it. He knew his "enemy".
The most important part in the last quote is not "their country" but "They see but one thing" , just as in the first quote "in their view".

He also said : "We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.
Letter to his son Amos (5 October 1937), as quoted in Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion: The Burning Ground; and Fabricating Israeli History: The 'New Historians (2000) by Efraim Karsh; this has been extensively misquoted as "[We] must expel Arabs and take their places" after appearing in this form in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (1987) by Benny Morris, p. 25."

Originally Posted by MontyB

Quick question would you feel the same if it were your land?

Yes, I would feel quite same. I answered this before; as long as I was raised the way I was raised now, I would not resort to terrorism. If I felt I had legal ability to contest it, then that would be my goal.



Not going to bother responding to you, Seno, I don't understand how you comprehend things.

My sole reason for quoting you was to back VDKMS's statement that a country's laws should be followed (as long as it do not go against humanity). I think you dug too deep into his words.