Debunking myths about Israel

[BT]

Minus yours & Bt's opinion of over-reaction vs merely using more force than they could have, though still justified, the truth is the truth.  Sorry, if that rubs some folks the wrong way

Yes. They used more force than they needed and or could have.

Yes, I think we've addressed that already

What is interesting is you seem to think nuking both parties if the eventual peace treaty is abridged is non proportional to the transgression, but you have no problem lining up unarmed protestors in your sights and blowing their heads off, as if having your head blown away when you pose no serious threat to the sovereignty of Israel is a proportional response.

Minus the grotesque irrational hyperbole, one is defending one's country, the other is a rather ridiculous (IMHO) non starter of mass killing, of even those who were attacked in the 1st place. 

It's an apples oranges thing again

More like a matter of proportionality and scale.

[sirs]

Naaa, its an apples & oranges thing, not to mention gross hyperbole from your end

[Xavier_Onassis]

Murdering unarmed people is not a "hyperbole thing".

[sirs]

Inferring that sirs has no problem "blowing people's heads off" is

[BT]

Inferring that sirs has no problem "blowing people's heads off" is

Did you not say that shooting unarmed protestors was justified and within the Israeli's rights?

[sirs]

Yes.....you'll note that in no way equates to "blowing heads off".  That's YOUR ridiclous hyperbole, matched only in advocating that the U.S. nuke Isreal, in response to some Hamas terrorist attack, upon Isreal. 

A nice leg wound, works just fine for me

[BT]

Yes.....you'll note that in no way equates to "blowing heads off".  That's YOUR ridiclous hyperbole, matched only in advocating that the U.S. nuke Isreal, in response to some Hamas terrorist attack, upon Isreal. 

A nice leg wound, works just fine for me

Killing is killing and different from wounding, mainly in that the wounded live to tell the tale.  Are you now walking back your position, concerning Israel killing unarmed protestors? Perhaps a less lethal approach would be called for and have a better reception amongst  the rest of the world watching?

BTW just so you are clear, HAMAS would be nuked too.

[sirs]

SHOOTING IS SHOOTING 

KILLING IS KILLING

SHOOTING IS NOT KILLING

[BT]

Your position all along  has been that Israel was justified in killing those 20 unarmed protestors.

Are you changing that position?

[sirs]

No, they were justified in the use of force they used, which was shooting, which happened to have killed 20 illegally crossing protesters.  Killing requires a mindset that the object/intention WAS TO KILL.  Neither you nor I have any idea if the Israelis had shoot to kill orders.

Which again isn't even in the same ballpark is inferring some ok on my part to blow people's heads off     

[BT]

No, they were justified in the use of force they used, which was shooting, which happened to have killed 20 illegally crossing protesters.  Killing requires a mindset that the object/intention WAS TO KILL.  Neither you nor I have any idea if the Israelis had shoot to kill orders.

Which again isn't even in the same ballpark is inferring some ok on my part to blow people's heads off     

Do you think the Israeli's might have suspected they were killing the protestors after the first one fell and didn't move? My understanding is the border was manned by trained snipers on the Israeli side of the border. One would think they would have been better shots.

But it's good to know that you agree that they shouldn't have killed anyone. That that was just overkill for the situation at hand.

[sirs]

No, I'd suspect they believed them to be injured, like most others might think.  If the object was to kill, why were there not far more killed?  There were more than 20 protesters, weren't there??   And as you say, with trained snipers, they'd have been able to kill pretty much any and everyone....IF that were the intention

[Christians4LessGvt]

BT presses SIRS about "murdering" unarmed protesters
while BT advocates plans that include nuking entire unarmed populations
irony?
go figure
 

[BT]

BT presses SIRS about "murdering" unarmed protesters
while BT advocates plans that include nuking entire unarmed populations
irony?
go figure
 

Ummm in order to qualify for the nuking, one or the other side must break the peace. I would suspect that breaking the peace involves arms. Tanks, airplanes, missiles, bullets, those kind of things.

I doubt a Palestinian shepherd mooning an Israeli sentry would qualify as breaking the peace.

[sirs]

I doubt any Palestinian shepherd would be attempting such a tactic, as a means of breaking the peace.  FAR MORE likely in that of a simple Hamas rocket attack, if knowing that the repercussions, per BT's plan, would bring about the end of Israel, via a U.S. nuclear attack

But back to the prior point....were there not more than 20 protesters, illegally crossing into Israeli territory?