1
   

Palestinian Strikes Blow for Freedom Against Israel

 
 
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 04:32 am
A triumphal blow for liberty has been struck against the demon Israel. Someday Palestinian school children will write about the heroic acts of their Founding Fathers. <----- SARCASM

Quote:

Israel bakery bomber kills 3

POSTED: 4:46 a.m. EST, January 29, 2007

JERUSALEM (AP) -- A Palestinian suicide bomber attacked a bakery in the southern Israeli resort town of Eilat on Monday, killing three other people, police said. It was the first suicide attack in Israel in nine months and the first ever to hit Eilat, Israel's southernmost city.

Two Palestinian militant groups, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, claimed joint responsibility for the attack. A spokesman for Islamic Jihad, which has carried out dozens of suicide attacks, told The Associated Press that the attacker came from the West Bank, but gave no other details.

The bomber struck a small bakery in a residential neighborhood. Shattered glass was visible on the sidewalk outside, alongside bread trays scattered by the blast.

Benny Mazgini, 45, said he was in an apartment across the street when the building shook from the force of the blast.

When he ran outside, Mazgini said, he saw body parts scattered on the sidewalk outside the bakery....


CNN
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,428 • Replies: 32
No top replies

 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:07 am
Remember,this bakery ASKED for it by daring to bake bread for people to eat,and for daring to be owned by a Jewish man.

And lets not forget,if the bakery hadnt been there,it wouldnt have been attacked.
Also,the Israeli govt PROVOKED the attack,by allowing the baker to open his shop and by allowing him to have customers.

Have I forgotten any of the defenses the left will use to try and justify this crime?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:31 am
mysteryman, bullies always cry when they get slapped back. The Israeli war merchants are still wondering what took so long for this attack. But they finally achieved their objective after 9 long months.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:37 am
blueflame1 wrote:
mysteryman, bullies always cry when they get slapped back. The Israeli war merchants are still wondering what took so long for this attack. But they finally achieved their objective after 9 long months.


Thank you,I had forgotten that this baker and his shop were actually bullies,using the military power of this bakery to incite a retaliatory attack.

I knew I had forgotten one of the lefts most popular excuses.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 09:57 am
mysteryman, you use hysterics like bullies do. All those who refuse to admit Israeli atrocities and persecution of Palestinians are the root of their problem and contribute to the violence. As Jimmy Carter had the guts to say, "Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law." He should also have pointed America's violations of international law also. Attacks like the one on the bakery play into the schemes of Israeli/American war merchants and if nobody attacked they would stage an attack and make it look like the "enemy" did it. They never had a problem with staging false flag attacks. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? The Liberty?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:20 am
blueflame1 wrote:
mysteryman, you use hysterics like bullies do. All those who refuse to admit Israeli atrocities and persecution of Palestinians are the root of their problem and contribute to the violence. As Jimmy Carter had the guts to say, "Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law." He should also have pointed America's violations of international law also. Attacks like the one on the bakery play into the schemes of Israeli/American war merchants and if nobody attacked they would stage an attack and make it look like the "enemy" did it. They never had a problem with staging false flag attacks. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? The Liberty?


Gulf of Tonkin?
You mean the attack that was staged by LBJ and other democrats?
The USS LIberty?
That was an American intelligence ship that was attacked by Israeli forces.
LBJ (a DEMOCRAT) refused to allow the USN to respond and protect that ship.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:22 am
blueflame1 wrote:
...All those who refuse to admit Israeli atrocities and persecution of Palestinians are the root of their problem and contribute to the violence...

Even if this were true, and it's not, how does that justify an attack in which non-combatants are killed, not by accident, but as the primary, intended targets?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:24 am
mysteryman "You mean the attack that was staged by LBJ and other democrats?" Yes that's exactly what I mean.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:24 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
...All those who refuse to admit Israeli atrocities and persecution of Palestinians are the root of their problem and contribute to the violence...

Even if this were true, and it's not, how does that justify an attack in which non-combatants are killed, not by accident, but as the primary, intended targets?


It doesn't justify it. This attack doesn't justify anything Israel does in response, either.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 10:38 am
Brandon, I never said this attack justifies anything. But I have said this attack is what Israeli war merchants want and if it hadn't happened they are capable of staging an Operation Northwoods style attack and blaming it on their enemies. Those who killed Rabin and rejoiced at his death have proven themselves capable of much worse if it helps them acheive their imperialist goals. Those who ignore American and Israeli atrocities are certainly not part of the solution. They are the ones who justify mass murder whether in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza or some bakery in Israel. Israel probably would't commit so many war crimes if the Palestinians possessed Apache helicopters and fighter planes and bombs and nukes.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 11:38 am
Brandon,

The fact that you are posting this is silly.

As a liberal, my position is that violence is rarely justified and that violence that violates international law is never justified. I also understand that this type of brutal violence that hurts civilians is counterproductive even to the alledged cause of the people who support violence.

You seem to think that violence is jusitified if you hate your enemy sufficiently. You are willing to support violent acts that break international law. You believe also believe that violent acts are an effective way to reach your goals.

Why are you confusing my position with yours. I am the one who opposes violence. Period.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 12:24 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Brandon,

The fact that you are posting this is silly.

As a liberal, my position is that violence is rarely justified and that violence that violates international law is never justified. I also understand that this type of brutal violence that hurts civilians is counterproductive even to the alledged cause of the people who support violence.

You seem to think that violence is jusitified if you hate your enemy sufficiently. You are willing to support violent acts that break international law. You believe also believe that violent acts are an effective way to reach your goals.

Why are you confusing my position with yours. I am the one who opposes violence. Period.

I fail to see how stating my opinion constitutes confusing my opinion with yours. I do not believe the opinion that you have attributed to me, that "violence is justified if you hate your enemy enough." You know perfectly well that you cannot find a post on A2K in which I express any such sentiment. Yes, I do believe that violence, the use of a military, is justified under certain circumstances, but they have nothing to do with hating someone. What I have said here, and what I do believe is that violence that targets non-combatants as the intended target is unethical. That is the only statement I have made in this thread. It's counterproductive to ask me to justify positions which I have not taken. The sort of attack I reported here is barbaric and unacceptable.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 12:27 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Brandon, I never said this attack justifies anything. But I have said this attack is what Israeli war merchants want and if it hadn't happened they are capable of staging an Operation Northwoods style attack and blaming it on their enemies. Those who killed Rabin and rejoiced at his death have proven themselves capable of much worse if it helps them acheive their imperialist goals. Those who ignore American and Israeli atrocities are certainly not part of the solution. They are the ones who justify mass murder whether in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza or some bakery in Israel. Israel probably would't commit so many war crimes if the Palestinians possessed Apache helicopters and fighter planes and bombs and nukes.

Nonsense. I have stated on this board that violence can be justified in certain instances. However, you are either wrong or lying when you accuse me of trying to justify intentional murder of civilians. I have consistently spoken against this here. Any such attack should be absolutely unacceptable to any civilized person.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 01:49 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
What I have said here, and what I do believe is that violence that targets non-combatants as the intended target is unethical. That is the only statement I have made in this thread.


I agree with you that violence that targets non-combatants as the intended target is unethical.

The problem I have with your position is that you find violence that willingly accepts the deaths of non-combatants as "collateral damage" completely ethical and acceptable.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 01:52 pm
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
What I have said here, and what I do believe is that violence that targets non-combatants as the intended target is unethical. That is the only statement I have made in this thread.


I agree with you that violence that targets non-combatants as the intended target is unethical.

The problem I have with your position is that you find violence that willingly accepts the deaths of non-combatants as "collateral damage" completely ethical and acceptable.


I find it equally shocking that you, or someone like you, would try to bring up that same old **** every time a thread like this comes up. What is wrong with discussing the violence of Palestinian terrorists without getting into the bed-wetting whining about how evil Israel is and how they bring it on themselves.

I doubt the people killed in that bakery had much to do with any crime against against any Palestinian... well, unless you count being a Jew as a crime.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 01:56 pm
What I object to is the idea that unethical violence by ones enemies justifies violence that willingly accepts the deaths of non-cambatants.

It seems to me that the conservatives on one side use the abuses of the conservatives on the other side to justify their own abuses.

It seems to me that limiting violence and opposing abuses by either side is the only ethical stance. Evil does not justify evil.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 02:07 pm
McGentrix wrote:
old europe wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
What I have said here, and what I do believe is that violence that targets non-combatants as the intended target is unethical. That is the only statement I have made in this thread.


I agree with you that violence that targets non-combatants as the intended target is unethical.

The problem I have with your position is that you find violence that willingly accepts the deaths of non-combatants as "collateral damage" completely ethical and acceptable.


I find it equally shocking that you, or someone like you, would try to bring up that same old **** every time a thread like this comes up. What is wrong with discussing the violence of Palestinian terrorists without getting into the bed-wetting whining about how evil Israel is and how they bring it on themselves.

I doubt the people killed in that bakery had much to do with any crime against against any Palestinian... well, unless you count being a Jew as a crime.



Wait, McGentrix. Did you just call the deaths of non-combatants "that same old ****", and complaints about collateral damage "bed-wetting whining"?

Not that you don't have the right to do that (free speech and all), but I think it rather disqualifies you as someone who should talk about ethical and acceptable behaviour.

Merely my opinion.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 02:32 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
What I object to is the idea that unethical violence by ones enemies justifies violence that willingly accepts the deaths of non-cambatants.

It seems to me that the conservatives on one side use the abuses of the conservatives on the other side to justify their own abuses.

It seems to me that limiting violence and opposing abuses by either side is the only ethical stance. Evil does not justify evil.

It seems to me that there is a difference between aiming at a military target and trying hard not to hurt non-combatants on the one hand, and deliberately aiming at civilians on the other. I feel sorry for anyone who can't see the moral distinction, or who believes that it's of no consequence.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 02:46 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
What I object to is the idea that unethical violence by ones enemies justifies violence that willingly accepts the deaths of non-cambatants.

It seems to me that the conservatives on one side use the abuses of the conservatives on the other side to justify their own abuses.

It seems to me that limiting violence and opposing abuses by either side is the only ethical stance. Evil does not justify evil.

It seems to me that there is a difference between aiming at a military target and trying hard not to hurt non-combatants on the one hand, and deliberately aiming at civilians on the other. I feel sorry for anyone who can't see the moral distinction, or who believes that it's of no consequence.


That's a good point.

The question is: how much of a moral distinction is there between aiming at a military target and not trying very hard not to hurt non-combatants on the one hand, and deliberately aiming at civilians on the other.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Jan, 2007 03:03 pm
Quote:

It seems to me that there is a difference between aiming at a military target and trying hard not to hurt non-combatants on the one hand, and deliberately aiming at civilians on the other. I feel sorry for anyone who can't see the moral distinction, or who believes that it's of no consequence.


So, you feel sorry for those who are killed? Because, to them, there exists no moral distinction; the reasoning is of no consequence. Only the facts matter.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Palestinian Strikes Blow for Freedom Against Israel
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/16/2021 at 12:55:23