Hamas legalizes Crucifixion

[Final-Fan]

superchunk said:

Final-Fan said:
1. Don't be naive, they teach that it doesn't exist because they WANT it to not exist, and it's not going to disappear in a cloud of magic fairy dust.

2. But Israel is dismantling a lot of the settlements. Who is stopping the rocket attacks? This sort of thing is why Israel is not quite as culpable in the continuing violence. The violence of the settlers is recent and may be temporary and is local/unauthorized/spontaneous, whereas Hamas is anything but.

3. That is not genocide. If you seriously think it is, tell me your definition. I'm not saying it's OK but it's not inherently genocidal at all.

1. Wouldn't you? If someone forced themselves into your house and told you that you can only live in the bedrooms, wouldn't you want them gone? Wouldn't you continue to call the entire house exclusively yours? Again, lack of true historical knowledge is why people think there is something inherently wrong with Arabs refusing to put Israel on a map before a final agreement has been made.

2. lol. They just relocate them. They removed Gaza, which had no historical basis for Israel in the first place, and expanded the largest settlements around Jerusalem and other cities like Hebron. Same thing in WB. They have taken down small outposts that many times had one or two family of radical Jews and relocated by force to other settlements. They are still expanding illegally.

3. I didn't say it was genocide, just 'genocidal idea'. I couldn't think of a better word for the idea that its ok to murder numerous bystanders to get one person. Maybe it was too harsh of a word choice, what would you call it? But, that is how Israel, and Arabs, have always responded. That is why above I called them both pushed on by their own terrorists.

1.  But now you seem to be defending an attitude of wanting to destroy the state of Israel, not denying it, as you did here:  "not recognizing its existance in maps, etc, is not the same thing as calling for its destruction".  It's a pretty fine line between wanting it to be gone, knowing that it will never leave unless it is destroyed, and calling for it to be destroyed. 

2.  I'd need to look into this more to be able to address the specific issues you mention.  But what do you mean by "still expanding"?  What new areas have been settled recently? 

3.   So you admit that genocide may have been the wrong word.  OK. 

Suggestions?  Callous is a good one.  Warlike would be accurate but probably too obvious; civilian casualties have been a sad byproduct of war forever.  Murderous would be too much of a stretch IMO since the civilians are not the target in your example, but an attack aimed at no particular target other than population centers is obviously trying to kill civilians and could be fairly called murderous. 

[edit:  "indiscriminately deadly" is kind of a mouthful, but sounds appropriately bad.  I don't know if it's actually accurate though; occasionally they kill a lot of innocent bystanders, but usually not many.]