Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 02:33:37 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:
As I said, the boy in the picture was murdered by an Israeli sniper. That is
what is called cold-blooded murder.

Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation.
Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the
only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and
execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

Actually intelligence is a requirement for snipers.

You've got to be all kinds of stupid to be throwing rocks at people armed with
guns. You've got to be just as stupid, if not more so, to allow your kid to be
running around throwing rocks at people with guns.

You apparently cannot read.

If the tank gunner had killed them there might be some remote relation to
reality in what you said.

He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

--
No country in the world has recognized Israel's right to exist. Why must the
Palestinians be the first?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3647
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

Matt Giwer wrote:
He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

So you mean a Jewish child who threw a rock at a Nazi had to expect to be
murdered.

So you mean Jews who did not fully support the Nazis should have expected to be
murdered at any time. Or should only those who spit when Nazis walked by have
expected to be murdered?

Ask I asked and you never answered, When did you become a Nazi?

--
Hodie quarto Nonas Iulias MMVI est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org

Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

If not why is it supported by US when Israel acts that way.
And Why is the country at War with terrorism still sheltering within
it's borders convicted terrorists who have escaped from jail and
suspected terrorists wanted for trial which they are refusing to
extradite.

Oh I forgot they are Irish, and so not Muslim so can not be terrorists
in the American understanding!

The Middle East has one of 2 soloutions
All of land between Jordan and the Med is a single country, in which
case everyone gets the vote, and lots of the laws of "Israel" are
changed with a large block of elected Hamas officials in the
Parliament.
The land is split into 2 countries in which case Israel has to get out
of illegal occupation of all of the land taken in 1967.
Israel is trying to have it's cake and eat it, it wants as much of the
land as possible but as few of the people.

Dan wrote:
Jordan wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political power of the
Jews, America would have bombed London by now.

--
When western nations renounce the right to resistance to foreign occupation
they can honestly demand Palestinians do so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3650
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

Matt Giwer wrote:
Dan wrote:

Jordan wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a
sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his
way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.


Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.


Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.


Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.

America did, but having no guts did it by procuration - proxy?- by
fundin the IRA. To this day America is scared of extradition.

Trouduc

JP

In article ,
Jean Pierre wrote:


Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.

America did, but having no guts did it by procuration - proxy?- by
fundin the IRA. To this day America is scared of extradition.

Do try to get it through your wooly head that "some Americans (with the
demonstrated mentational abilities of a sea sponge)" != America.

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Jean Pierre wrote:


Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.


America did, but having no guts did it by procuration - proxy?- by
fundin the IRA. To this day America is scared of extradition.


Do try to get it through your wooly head that "some Americans (with the
demonstrated mentational abilities of a sea sponge)" != America.

Perhaps he meant 'influential Americans' who run America! What do you mean?

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

Matt Giwer wrote:
Dan wrote:

Jordan wrote:

Matt Giwer wrote:

He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a
sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his
way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.


Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.


Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.


Or as an Irish friend once said, If the Irish had the political
power of the Jews, America would have bombed London by now.

Was that an Irish person or an American claiming to be Irish? There is a
vast difference, as those of us who live and work with the Irish know.

Ricardo

--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

"Dan" wrote in
oups.com:

[snip]

Ah I see so the soloution to some rioting teenagers in LA or New York,
is call out the National Gaurd and shoot them all, or is that only OK
if they are Muslim?

Depends on what they are doing. If they are throwing stones and
firebombs shooting may in fact be justified. Strictly speaking
they should be warned about what is going to happen ( this is
what "reading the Riot Act" refered to ) and if they persist
start taking them out. Members of the crowd who are merely
present should not be targetted deliberately but ti must be
recognised that if they choose to shield those engaged in
the proscribed activities they are putting themselves at risk.

So the reason the UK put up with terrorism for 30 years is we did not
"do the right thing" which was obviously implement operation "Peace for
Ulster", invade Republic of Ireland, put Dublin under siege and destroy
with Heavy Artillary for 95 days, then send RAF to to destroy the
fundraising capitals of the terrorists, New York and Boston.

I'd have settled for having the SAS whack Teddy KKKennedy.

If not why is it supported by US when Israel acts that way.
And Why is the country at War with terrorism still sheltering within
it's borders convicted terrorists who have escaped from jail and
suspected terrorists wanted for trial which they are refusing to
extradite.

Were it up to me they'd be on their way to London by Fedex
Overnight.

Oh I forgot they are Irish, and so not Muslim so can not be terrorists
in the American understanding!

Didja notice where they tend to hide, Taxachussetts and other
Dhimmicreep fiefdoms.

The Middle East has one of 2 soloutions
All of land between Jordan and the Med is a single country, in which
case everyone gets the vote, and lots of the laws of "Israel" are
changed with a large block of elected Hamas officials in the
Parliament.

Which isn't going to happen. Even the Palestinians aren't that
stoopid. Well,,,,, on the other hand its entirely possible they
are just that braindead and feckless.

The land is split into 2 countries in which case Israel has to get out
of illegal occupation of all of the land taken in 1967.

Now why would they want to do that? It gains them aboslutely
nothing and puts the Asshats in a position to do even more damage.
No the Asshats can scream and throw feces all they like. It won't
change jack.

Israel is trying to have it's cake and eat it, it wants as much of the
land as possible but as few of the people.

Well given that Israel is the only thing that even approaches
a democratic society in the Middle East most Westerners are
prepared to cut them some slack. This, for some reason upsets
the Fugginazis.
Gawd, Fugginazis are dumb.

IBM