Human catastrophe

How can an non existant "episode" remind you of anything?

Except of course that the quote doesn't provide any evidence of it being terrorism or that the primary impact or design of the campaign was to inspire terror much less that it was aimed primarily against civilians.

So a none existantant "episode" caused you to draw unwarented conclusions from one almost a century earlier. That makes sense .... not.

Congratulations.

The facts and logic presented to not support the conclusion drawn.

It may or may not be propaganda that doesn't mean that it is not correct. Your assumptions as to the policies of NATO and the US (which are not the same and nor does Washington (either the city or the state) represent the US) also seems to be seriously flawed and based on opinion rather than fact or logic (all though it may be supported by Russian propaganda that is based on the big lie rather than any attempt at truth or logic itself). It's pretty clear here that we have a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black or perhaps a better analogy would be the pott calling silverware black.

 

Put all the bastards on your list, they all deserve that.
Yet, there are slight differences among them, for example: Whilst Hitlers perpetrators burned just dead bodies in crematoriums, Americans burnt their victims alive, with napalm, not by mistake as you claim but deliberately, on purpose.
I don't defend "my" bastards, so stop defending "your" war criminals.

By the way, I know you will use your privilege of a moderator to delete a photo below but the crimes are well documented and cannot be simply erased from history. Shame will remain whatever propaganda say and whatever is erased.

 

I'd have to disagee with that one. The present as well as the previous king of Jordan has been pretty benevolent there are a couple more I have read of that I wouldn't consider evil. Corrupt is a more difficult item to address but even there I think that some of them don't deserve that appelation. Of course they are outnumbered by those that do especially if you look further into the past.

Looks like we have a serious English comprehension problem. None of the above were despots in any sense of the word. I don't think any of them warrent the appelation "evil" either if they do you would be very hard placed to find any leader that does not. As for corrupt, depending on how you define it you might be able to make a case for a few of them being so but you cerainly couldn't make a conclusive case for all of them and possibly not for any.

Wrong. Not even every week. According to the following 24 so far this year
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2015
Not sure what your point is in this though. I see a big difference between executing someone convicted of murder after due process compared to just the lack of due process much less converting from one religion to another or speaking out against the state or ruler.

In some cases. There are also groups that protest them. As for "They love it!" that's more than a bit quetionable. Whey they are there is quite variable. Some have specific interest in the particular case and see it as justice being done. Others may have less justifyable reasons but they are such a small minority that I'm not sure just what your point is.

Certainly the US record is far from clean but I'd loke to know when biological warfare agests were spread in cities.
Not sure what the point is about Homosexuality either. Just because it was considered a medical disorder doesn't mean that you would be confined to a psychiatric ward. The prejudice and reactions of the general populace were probably much more of an issue.

 

I don't see that we are defending out "war criminals". Your photo by the way proves nothing. Now if you had described what happened in detail it might have had some standing in that regard but as it is it constitutes a pretty good illustration of the fallacy refered to as appeal to emotion. Unfortunate and bad things happen in war. That doesn't mean that they are war crimes and even if they are it doesn't mean the nation of the forces involved or its leader are guilty of them.

 

This question is for lwd and lwd only.

Why the Nazis are War Criminals if they burned death Jews whilst American are not even though burning people alive with napalm is much more inhumane murder because it causes more pain to the victims? Don't tell me now that Americans were just clumsy and have missed the target. Targets were people.
Is this just because Americans are "exceptional"?

 

Napalm was used in WW2 as well as Korea. It wasn't magically invented for Vietnam.
Did you miss that page on Pravda?

 

Really?

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/jordan

They're all dictators. Some may be better than others, but none of them recognize the basic human liberties that we hold dear in the west.

 

It isn't clear, as very few numbers are presented. It could mean that the numbers of children surviving were increased. It could mean people could afford larger families. It could be life expectancy was greatly increasing. It could be people returning from Egypt or other remnants of the Turkish Empire, whose families fled decades earlier. Yet none of this is examined, even fleetingly, beyond a statement

"After remaining nearly stagnant for centuries, the population exploded in modern times due to improved infrastructure, agriculture, and immigration, both Jewish and Arab. As a result, from 1890 to 1947, in less than sixty years, the population grew from 532,000 to 1,845,560"

Let's put this in context, in order to examine if this population explosion can be mainly attributed in terms of immigration:

India; Population 1930: 277 Million, Population 1990: 834 Million
Nigeria: Population 1930: 20 Million, Population 1990: 108,5 Million
Iran: Population 1930: 12,6 Million, Population 1990: 59 Million

Now, yes, these figures cover the "green revolution of the 60s", but with the radical changes taking place in Palestine with regards to agriculture (mainly thanks to European Jewish immigrants bringing new methods in), we can nevertheless see that large population growth does not require a huge influx of immigrants to explain. Unless someone imagines India's and Iran's populations grew significantly through immigration...

So I'd say, yes, of course Arab immigration may have payed it's part, but it can not be used as an excuse to claim (as the paper does) that there wasn't a long continuous presence that included the clear majority of people identifying themselves as Palestinians (the author tries to claim it was only a minority, due to Arab immigration, but without ever showing any real numbers of Arab immigrants). Failing to present these numbers is the author's biggest mistake, and entirely discredits most, if not all, of his paper. because then it becomes an opinion not based in facts, with hand-waving exercises to match the smoke and mirrors. Which is sort of sad.

Israel might not disinherit anyone within the state of Israel, but it certainly does so in the Occupied territories, when it supports Jews to build settlements on land that doesn't belong to Israel.

 

If you don't understand satire, you will not get the point.

 

That's your opinion which is hardly surprising as you think it gives you the strongest argument. I note that it was not your initial choice either but when the logical problems were pointed out with your intiial one that pretty much invalidated your opinion you switched to a less problematic one.

Palestinians who are Israeli citizens probably have more rights and secutity than those anywhere else in the Mideast. So your statement is a bit problematic.

Just how is it illegal? It seems to fit right in with the pattern of post colonial states. There also seems to be a bit of a dicotomy in your logic. Israel's existance is illegal but it has a right to exist while land acquisitions that are illegal should be reversed? Of course the latter would also destroy Israel but it seems you don't have a problem with that.

Sorry no. It depends on a lot more factors than that.

It may be propaganda at least in some sources but it is also correct. Some of the Palestinians did indeed leave volentarily. I don't consider leaving under threat of death voluntary either. It's also true that some were expelled. It's not at all clear which were the majority but there were quite a few in both camps.

The question is just how prevelant was it? Certainly prior to 1947 it wasn't happening. After 1949 you will also have a hard case to make for it being illegal.

If you abandon property it can be forclosed on. If the ownership is in dispute then if you can't present a good case for your ownership it can also be assigned to another party. I will not argue that there wasn't at least some element of ethnic cleansing going on in Israel after its formation. Just how much and how much is justified is an open question though. By the way the "murderer" analogy is somewhat contrived. While there were some incidents where it looks to be valid they were a small minority. In the US by the way the government can take ones land just about any time it wants to, subject to paying a reasonable amount for it.

So now it's the Russian Jews that are the problem. Sounds like you have a real problem with Russians. From what I can see the problem was more the fault of certain elements in the Arab population. They were the ones that wanted to make race and religion grounds for divergent treatment under the law.

In this context it would be but it is rather obviously incorrect as well. Nor does it answer the question I asked which was about pre 1948 not pre 1850.


too many quotes so breakng it up

 

That's an opinion and one without much justification.

Not a very accurate analogy though is it? There were very few at the time who considered the Israllis to be the stronger.

Sorry but you are wrong. That is hardly a valid defintion of fundamentalist. Then there's the fact that Israel allows the practice of other relitions and does not require its citizens to be Jewish. So we can discount that opinion.

Actually I think I've done a pretty good job of that. The question isn't whether it's a propganda site by the way but whether or not thier information is correct. If you can't refute it then my questioning of your position stands.

So?

There was also no Palestinian state. So indeed the time is crucial but what lead up to that time is also important. It's also worth considering what would have happened in the absence of the creation of the state of Israel.

That's an opinion and very much a what if one. It's possible but it's also possible that Israel whould have continued to exist. At one point Russia for instance favored the creation of Israel had they been the primary backer I suspect we'd stll see an Israel in existance. They might have survived on their own as well but probably would have had to be a bit more draconian to do so.

I agree but then no one has everything and the Israelis haven't been targeting civilians, so what's your point.

Actually there is pretty strong evidence that they have significant restrictions and are very much trying to limit civilian casualties (if for no other reason than it is in their best interest). And yes there is very strong evidence that Hamas has and is using human shields. That my the way makes Hamas guilty of war crimes and responsible for the civilian casualties not Israel.

some of the solutions have hardly been one sided. Indeed they have had some signifgant potential for the Palestinians. The problem of course is they don't fit in with the aims of the Palestinian leadership.

 

I think I was clear enough. Take my wording literally and that's it. I am not pretending, so why should you pretend you don't understand plain English.

Now, listen to one of greatest minds of the present day America and one of greatest scientists who's works I've read a while ago. Meanwhile you've obviously devoted more attention to easier literature - propaganda. I was swallowing his works on linguistics and human mind. Really, listen and enjoy his opinion on American war crimes. He is a genuine American, an American I deeply respect for he is devoted to genuine American values.

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUc8ukdVtMs&feature=youtu.be[/media]

 

Are you really that dense?
First of all the Nazis weren't War Criminals because they burned Jews to death. That act fell under crimes against humanity. The deaths of civilians in Vietnam was for the most part collateral damage due to arial bombardment just as the death of many civilians in WWII was. Now there were war crimes commited by the US in Vietnam (and WWII for that matter) but they were never institutionalized from the top and if brought to the attention of right people they were punnished. Germans were convicted of war crimes because they deliberately broke the conventions and it was institutionalized. Of course the Soviets did much the same but weren't. So in regards to the Soviets and the Germans you could say the US or better the west was exceptional.

 

figures you'd bring out an advocate for the far left as a reference. Only a scientist in the very widest defnition of the term i.e his fields are all in the social (or more accurately psuedo) sciences.

 

You're really qualified for everything - even to make bold judgement of a class A scientist. What should I say: you're either a genius or a fool.

 

Wrong again. But all it takes is a quick look at his resume to see the biases built in. Then there's the fact that in a very real sense of hte word the social sciense aren't sciences (if you can't apply the scientific method and conduct meaningful replicatable experiments it's not a science in my book although the broadest defnition of the term would allow for it). I'm not surprised that you think well of him though.

 

Biak,
I'm astonished that you haven't noticed that I have said 'burned dead (corpses) Jews' in contrast to 'burning alive people with napalm'. Do you realize the difference. Burning live people in flames is ultimate barbarism. Whether you choose either political orideological excuse, you still cannot justify severity of that crime. It is modestly speaking disguisting act of inhumanity. American governmemt and the US army have committed a long series of mass murders that can not be justified whatsoever. What weobserve today is just a drop in the ocean, but the number of desperate refugees in Europe is difficult to either overlook or justify. American military operations over the past decades are the roots of the present day misery. That's undeniable fact. Britons, the seccond fidle, are equaly responsiblefor the sufering of such a scale. Shame,really, that 'civilised' people cause so much harm to human being. Shame.