Freethought & Rationalism Archive

echidna · 06-20-2003, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jat
Aren't most of the Settlements being dismantled ones which haven't been finished yet with no one living there?

Yes, they're just uninhabited land claimed by the settlers. The real test is going to be when inhabited settlements are dismantled. This is only a mild test case so far.

slept2long · 06-21-2003, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
But such people would be very vulnerable to Palestinian fire.

Yes they would. That's no excuse for acting irresponsibly though. Try again.

Quote:

What would be trivial otherwise can become a big deal when facing enemy fire.

They weren't facing enemy fire!!!!!:banghead:

Quote:

The Israeli settlers weren't going to shoot the soldiers.

PUHLEEZE. How many settlers were ATTACKING the IDF troops? Go look it up. NONE of them were killed for resistance as Rachel was.

Loren Pechtel · 06-21-2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by slept2long
They weren't facing enemy fire!!!!!:banghead:

Working in the Palestinian areas they must always expect enemy fire.

PUHLEEZE. How many settlers were ATTACKING the IDF troops? Go look it up. NONE of them were killed for resistance as Rachel was.

Attacking in non-lethal ways. There was nothing to make the soldiers fear for their lives, unlike in the Rachel case.

Jat · 06-21-2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

Working in the Palestinian areas they must always expect enemy fire.

So, their policy is shoot first and don't ask any questions later? They don't have any business being there destroying that doctors home in the first place.

Attacking in non-lethal ways. There was nothing to make the soldiers fear for their lives, unlike in the Rachel case.

They wouldn't have felt that they were in any danger if they weren't there in the first place. You go into a lion's den expect to get eaten. Don't blame the lion for your own stupidity.

Autonemesis · 06-21-2003, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jat
Aren't most of the Settlements being dismantled ones which haven't been finished yet with no one living there?

According to the article linked in the OP, no.

Quote:

At the Aqaba summit, Ariel Sharon pledged to dismantle only the "unauthorised outposts", small hilltops seized by ideological settlers without Israeli government permission, such as the one at Mitzpe Yitzhar, set up in hastily to claim the land as Jewish and prevent a Palestinian state being set up here.

These are Israelis who are trying to stand in the way of this settlement with the Palestinians, this "road map." The issue with the settlers from the Palestinian point of view is that the Israeli government is not doing anything to stop them. That sounds like a familiar complaint, doesn't it?

Jat · 06-21-2003, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Autonemesis
According to the article linked in the OP, no.

These are Israelis who are trying to stand in the way of this settlement with the Palestinians, this "road map." The issue with the settlers from the Palestinian point of view is that the Israeli government is not doing anything to stop them. That sounds like a familiar complaint, doesn't it?

Didn't Sharon actually encourage Israelis to "claim" as much land, by building settlements, as they could? So, technally they had his permission if not from the government itself.

Loren Pechtel · 06-21-2003, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jat
Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

They wouldn't have felt that they were in any danger if they weren't there in the first place. You go into a lion's den expect to get eaten. Don't blame the lion for your own stupidity.

You would prefer they demolish the houses with air power??

Jat · 06-21-2003, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
You would prefer they demolish the houses with air power??

I perfer that they didn't demolish them at all. The house was that of a doctor, not a terrorist. Like all things the Israelis do there it was an immoral act.

You sound just like that Taliban leader when he was asked to stop using a sports area (Which was built with money from the west) for public executions. He said that they'd stop if the west built them a place to carry out their executions.

Sauron · 06-21-2003, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
She got run over because she fell where the driver couldn't see her--he thought she had jumped clear in their game of chicken.

BZZT. Doesn't work.

In the first place, that's not factually correct recounting of the events.

In the second place, Your claim that "she fell where the driver couldn't see her" doesn't work. Earlier you said she would have been visible, had she been sitting.

But if she was in the driver's range of vision while sitting, then she would also have been visible having just fallen down.

So according to your logic, the bulldozer driver should have stopped. But he did not.

Quote:

Thus the proper comparison is sitting vs laying down.

Incorrect, as I've just demonstrated.

Sauron · 06-21-2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Farren
Loren,

Your stubborn arguments on this topic are starting to look tired, desperate and weak.

They reached that point several weeks ago.

At this point, Loren is merely serving as a trophy case of blind zionism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-21-2003, 07:29 AM	#23
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by slept2long They weren't facing enemy fire!!!!!:banghead: Working in the Palestinian areas they must always expect enemy fire. PUHLEEZE. How many settlers were ATTACKING the IDF troops? Go look it up. NONE of them were killed for resistance as Rachel was. Attacking in non-lethal ways. There was nothing to make the soldiers fear for their lives, unlike in the Rachel case.

06-21-2003, 07:35 AM	#24
Jat Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 1,311	Originally posted by Loren Pechtel Working in the Palestinian areas they must always expect enemy fire. So, their policy is shoot first and don't ask any questions later? They don't have any business being there destroying that doctors home in the first place. Attacking in non-lethal ways. There was nothing to make the soldiers fear for their lives, unlike in the Rachel case. They wouldn't have felt that they were in any danger if they weren't there in the first place. You go into a lion's den expect to get eaten. Don't blame the lion for your own stupidity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.