Prisoner exchange
- Thread starter basketcase
- Start date
Attacking a military installation is not terrorism.
Now, bombing a wedding party at a hotel, THAT is terrorism.
Care to comment on the Netanya Park Hotel bombing, or are you still running away from discussing that?
Speaking of glorifying terrorism, how do you feel about the Palestinian glorification of suicide bombers?
Now, bombing a wedding party at a hotel, THAT is terrorism.
Care to comment on the Netanya Park Hotel bombing, or are you still running away from discussing that?
Speaking of glorifying terrorism, how do you feel about the Palestinian glorification of suicide bombers?
This discussion is about your support of terrorism, not mine.
I'm on record as being against terrorism, you are on record as having a moving goal post definition.
What British politicians and wikipedia call terrorism, you glorify.
You called the aid workers on the Gaza flotilla terrorists, yet celebrate the bombing of a hotel.
I'm on record as being against terrorism, you are on record as having a moving goal post definition.
What British politicians and wikipedia call terrorism, you glorify.
You called the aid workers on the Gaza flotilla terrorists, yet celebrate the bombing of a hotel.
So Groggy what definition of terrorism are you using? Let's nail you down on this, so we can see what sorts of things you consider terrorism. Give me a definition not just arbitrary quotes.
Here's mine:
An attack on civilians by non-state actors meant to instill terror in the population in order to achieve a political goal.
Here's mine:
An attack on civilians by non-state actors meant to instill terror in the population in order to achieve a political goal.
Funny from a guy who justified the Hamas murders of a car full of civilians including a pregnant woman saying that they were a justified target because they lived in a settlement.This discussion is about your support of terrorism, not mine.
I'm on record as being against terrorism, ...
Although his view is consistent since he also recently said there was no Palestinian terrorism so in his view, Israelis must be legitimate targets and therefore can't be targets of terrorism.
Take out 'non-state' and you've got a good start.So Groggy what definition of terrorism are you using? Let's nail you down on this, so we can see what sorts of things you consider terrorism. Give me a definition not just arbitrary quotes.
Here's mine:
An attack on civilians by non-state actors meant to instill terror in the population in order to achieve a political goal.
I'd say bombing hotels instills terror in a population, wouldn't you?
I agree that the bombing of the Netanya Park Hotel was meant to install terror in a population. I do not think that the bombing of the King David Hotel did, though. The difference of course is that the KDH was not a civilian facility, and therefore it cannot be construed as terrorizing civilians. The Netanya Park Hotel, on the other hand, was being used ONLY for civilian purposes when it was bombed.
You need to stop trying to misrepresent the situation. You like to use the word "hotel" a lot, but you don't like to acknowledge that in fact it was a military/government facility at the time--there were no civilian hotel guests there.
You need to stop trying to misrepresent the situation. You like to use the word "hotel" a lot, but you don't like to acknowledge that in fact it was a military/government facility at the time--there were no civilian hotel guests there.
OK, so you just want to mislead, misrepresent and deceive. You have no interest in the truth whatsoever. Right here, this is classic Groggy--you know that you're full of shit, but it doesn't stop you from writing that.The King David Hotel was a functioning hotel at the time of the attack.
The part of the building that was attacked was not functioning as a hotel, it was functioning as a military headquarters. Some other part of the building was functioning as a hotel--who cares. The part that was attacked was military/government.
Your claim is something like saying that the Pentagon is an office building and that any attack on an office building is terrorism.
Thanks for admitting that the King David hotel was a functioning hotel at the time of the attack.OK, so you just want to mislead, misrepresent and deceive. You have no interest in the truth whatsoever. Right here, this is classic Groggy--you know that you're full of shit, but it doesn't stop you from writing that.
The part of the building that was attacked was not functioning as a hotel, it was functioning as a military headquarters. Some other part of the building was functioning as a hotel--who cares. The part that was attacked was military/government.
Your claim is something like saying that the Pentagon is an office building and that any attack on an office building is terrorism.
And carry on defending attacking hotels, you glorifier of terrorism.
Your whole argument relies on misrepresentation of the word "hotel", you use that word to insinuate that it was an attack on a civilian target--when you know that it was not--so that you can make an unfounded claim that there was an attack on civilians. I don't know who you think you are fooling, Groggy, if anybody is reading this what is evident is your lack of concern with the truth, your dishonesty, and the way your entire position depends on lying, misleading, and misrepresenting.
You are unable to deal with the truth, your position does not stand up to the light of day.
You are unable to deal with the truth, your position does not stand up to the light of day.
Now this is really quite exceptional.I don't know who you think you are fooling, Groggy, if anybody is reading this what is evident is your lack of concern with the truth, your dishonesty, and the way your entire position depends on lying, misleading, and misrepresenting.
You are unable to deal with the truth, your position does not stand up to the light of day.
In this long series of insults from you and arguments from me, this one really takes the cake.
In post 349 you admit that the hotel was a functioning hotel and then only two posts later you go on to deny what you just admitted.
How can I possibly continue to argue with someone so deceitful that they won't even admit when they've admitted something.
The same thing happened after you admitted that there were laws that gave preferential treatment to Jews in Israel, you went on a couple of posts later to denying you made that statement then trying to change the terms of the argument through straw man moves.
Its one thing to be a racist, biased fool, but to take it to this level is really quite shocking.
Here, man up and admit that you admitted it was a hotel.
You lost this argument there and then.
If you don't, I'll just have to brand you as a liar.
Groggy, I want to see you write these words:
"I, Groggy, acknowledge that the section of the King David Hotel that was bombed was not a civilian facility, but was in fact a military headquarters and a government facility. Civilians were not a target in the attack, which did not attack any civilian facilities."
I want to see you acknowledge that.
"I, Groggy, acknowledge that the section of the King David Hotel that was bombed was not a civilian facility, but was in fact a military headquarters and a government facility. Civilians were not a target in the attack, which did not attack any civilian facilities."
I want to see you acknowledge that.
And keep on making a case for bombing hotels.the building was functioning as a hotel
You really are outdoing yourself.
Groggy, I want to see you write these words:
"I, Groggy, acknowledge that the section of the King David Hotel that was bombed was not a civilian facility, but was in fact a military headquarters and a government facility. Civilians were not a target in the attack, which did not attack any civilian facilities."
I want to see you acknowledge that.
"I, Groggy, acknowledge that the section of the King David Hotel that was bombed was not a civilian facility, but was in fact a military headquarters and a government facility. Civilians were not a target in the attack, which did not attack any civilian facilities."
I want to see you acknowledge that.
Why, its irrelevant to the argument.
The case has been made that the hotel was a functioning hotel at the time, as you have admitted.
British politicians and sources referred to the bombing as terrorism.
Yet you continue to support this terrorist act.
That's the point of the argument.
The case has been made that the hotel was a functioning hotel at the time, as you have admitted.
British politicians and sources referred to the bombing as terrorism.
Yet you continue to support this terrorist act.
That's the point of the argument.
Groggy, I want to see you write these words:
"I, Groggy, acknowledge that the section of the King David Hotel that was bombed was not a civilian facility, but was in fact a military headquarters and a government facility. Civilians were not a target in the attack, which did not attack any civilian facilities."
I want to see you acknowledge that.
"I, Groggy, acknowledge that the section of the King David Hotel that was bombed was not a civilian facility, but was in fact a military headquarters and a government facility. Civilians were not a target in the attack, which did not attack any civilian facilities."
I want to see you acknowledge that.
Actually no the PLO, the organization internationally recognized as speaking for those people--by the UN, the EU, and even by Hamas--was very explicit in its assertion that there could be no peace with Israel. It maintained that as its official position all the way up to Oslo.The only party that has not shown a willingness to live in peace are Israeli Jews. They are the party who carried out the ethnic cleansing and required by International Law to allow anyone to return to their homes.
Another bubble burst, Ernst Zundel/Fuji.
Sorry but you lose--the Palestinians, through their legitimate organizations--made it clear they rejected peace.
