abu_rashid wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 9:32am:

Either they are bad shots or the jihadis are lurking among the civilians, firing and hiding.
Every hamas rocket was meant to kill civilians.  The IDF is firing at identified hamas positions or places from which they are fired at.
And if the IDF are bad shots - you would need to be an absolute moron to provoke them. Yet that's what Hamcontrol them or as is doing. So they are either monsters or morons. And the palestinianss want them in power. What does that say about them?

The should give Gaza to Egypt, the West bank to Jordan on the understanding that they control the Palestinians or face the consequences. The palestinians are not fit to govern themselves.

Quote:


Did you provide a quote from me stating I have an imam?

Quote:


Yeh, and?

Is there some kind of unwritten rule I'm not aware of, that if you condemn something, you must condemn everything else? Please elaborate.

Quote:


I could only bee guilty of it, if there were some requirement upon me to condemn them. So if you can point me in the direction of which law or code demands that I must condemn them, then we have ourselves a discussion.

Quote:


What evidence do you have that they are doing this? Apart from IDF reports. Sorry, but I'm suree you can see why they couldn't be considered a credible source for such claims.

Besides, all of Gaza is a warzone now, fighting from any location is quite normal procedure for any military force Even the IDF have been using houses for cover... Sorry, I forgot, this rule only applies to Palestinians, my mistake.

Let me ask, if your city were beseiged by a foreign force, would you drive carefully all the way to the city limits, and launch your attack from an open field? I don't think so, anyone who claims such drivel is obviously deluded or a gullible parrot of the Zionist media.

mozzaok,

Quote:


The only real solution is the removal of the foreign entity which mass immigrated and stole the homes of the locals about 60-70 years ago. It's really that simple.

What would be your solution if a foreign entity had done it to Australia? Or does do it in future? Perhaps you can give possible scenarios on how Australians could resolve the dispute, from their refugee camps.

Accept Western Australia, and give them the rest of the country right?

Quote:


Are you for real mozza? Do you even know what you're talking about? You are aware Gaza and the West Bank are just two fenced in refugee camps that the Jews have left the Palestinians in after taking about 80% of the country? But that's not good enough for you, they need to take a further 10%???

This statement indicates you're about as ignorant of the situation as Grendel. You probably don't even know where Gaza and West Bank are on the map. Even the Jews were not stupid  enough to offer such a 'solution'. 

Quote:


How about you contact one and ask him. Good luck

Might pay to look at a map first.

Btw, the West Bank is only about 25% for Palestinians, the rest of it is covered in settlements and settler-only roads..

Quote:


Never heard of one which suggests giving up Gaza... Perhaps diplomats and politicians know something you and Grendel don't? 

Jewish citizens don't raise their children to be fodder for a figment of the imagination, Islamic animals do.

Islam must be eradicated from our country or all we have ever fought for in Australia will become meaningless.
Islam is not a religion, it's a dictatorship.

Quote:


In WWII many generals were faced with that dilemma. Some ended up fighting in cities and as a result there were a lot of civilian casualties. They did not blame the enemy for this. They blamed themselves. If you are too weak to take on the military directly, this does not justify the cowardly option of hiding behind women and children.

Quote:


It justifies self defence. It is absurd to suggest someone can hide behind women and children to launch a military attack and expect the foreign nation to sit on it's hands, unable to respond. To suggest otherwise implies that the lives of the palestinians are somehow worth more than those of the Israelis.

Quote:


No, it makes the people launching rockets legitimate targets. It makes the civilians collateral damage. It makes the idiots firing the rockets from apartment buildings ultimately responsible for their death.

Quote:


This is just getting stupid Abu. You can't launch rockets at Israel and complain that their response is illegal. It is a petulant, childish victim mentality. It is a complete refusal to take responsibility for your own actions.

Quote:


What convention forbids a country from taking out people who are launching rockets?

Abu, you are seriously deluded if you think that firing rockets from civilian centres somehow gives the palestinians the moral high ground, as if the Israelis should just let them do it.

Quote:


Yes I agree. And combined it equals dictatorship IMO.
The only element of Islam which we allow is the religious aspect. In fact this is a constitutional right - correct me if I'm wrong there Calanen, I know you will  
With time, we'll see other aspects of the doctrine creeping into our society. We already see it with the cries to ban certain aspects of our society which are offensive to Islam. These cries are far louder than any denounciation of terrorist acts.

Quote:


If Israel's actions are so indiscriminate, they wouldn't be going in there risking their troops, they'd simply blow away a square km from every rocket launch point.

Quote:


It absolutely is, one of the few rights we have in our constitution. Actually I think it is the *only* right we have expressly in our constitution. All the others are implied.

But like any right, it has limits. Freedom of speech is not the right to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre, or 'I have a bomb' in an airport terminal. So too is the right to practice religion freely - the constitutional right to religion is not meant to be a suicide pact for the West.

What the right means - is - worship whoever you damn well please. But it does not mean, that everyone else has to be subjected to what you believe is right or wrong, with the threat of violence through non-compliance.

The needs of the state also outweight religious freedom. The main case is one where either Jehovahs Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists (always get those two mixed up) refused to be conscripted during the War, *even* when Australia was being invaded (New Guinea was part of AUstralia then) and they were offered non-combat roles. The High Court and the Privy Council said, the need for the state to exist as it was threatened, trumped religious freedom.

I see Islam as a serious threat to the Western democratic state - that also trumps any claim to 'religious freedom'.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2009 at 4:23pm:


No, Islamic immigration eliminated or vastly reduced.

And 'zero tolerance' for any protests, calls for special treatment, claims of discrimination, and creeping sharia. Strike Hard.