Even Human Rights Watch admits that Hamas rockets targeted Israeli civilians, violating laws of war

i have 4 sons. Two of them are very conservative, one is a leftist and my 12 year old? Probably a leftist as his mom is. But I spend a lot of time with his. so let's see. But you are right americans are so far off.
m

https://me.yahoo.com/a/gp8pfnMow5NejGbLakU7xp0sff8F.JUuVA--#e3d83 wrote:

Another example of muslim soldiers helping christians:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9765022/Pakistans-loneliest-church-celebrates-Christmas-in-Taliban-country.html
...........................

Of course, "yahoo salad", doesn't mention what the Pakistani soldiers are protecting the Christians *from*—namely, their homicidal coreligionists.

These Christians, who are mostly clerical and domestic workers for the military base, are dhimmis in the classic sense—"protected" from other Muslims, just as long as they are useful to the Muslim authorities.

More crap:

I dont believe anybody targets civilians for the sake of killing civilians but

rather the terrorist mind is to achieve a strategic goal with no thought whatsoever about the safety of civilians
...........................

What utter crap. Hamas and the other Jihadists trying to destroy Israel have repeatedly stated that they are *deliberately* targeting civilians. That's what this article is about.

Then, of course, this meretricious Mohammedan goes on to sling false moral equivalence about the Allies during WWII.

But, of course, Hamas' aim isn't to end any war—it is to utterly destroy Israel. This is not conjecture—it is stated openly in their charter, and confirmed on a regular basis.

Jihadists regularly taunt Jews with the chant about the "Army of Muhammed returning", which resulted in the utter genocide of the Banu Qurayza.

So this Taqiyya will not fly here. Take it elsewhere, creep.

Graven, are you saying its ok to kill civilians in a nuclear attack, as long as the offical statement does not mention the deliberate killing of civilians ?

Are you saying that Truman did not know there were christians in the city of Nagasaki ?

It ended a bloody disgusting war, that Japan started, in a few days.

Tojo being stubborn refused to surrender after the first bomb. That made the second one necessary.

Bigdakine, Japan was fighting a defensive war as early as 1942, so the atom bomb in 1945 was totally unnecessary when a ceasefire would have ended the war as early as 1942

but destroying Japan only allowed the communists to expand their power in China

which in turn resulted in hundreds of thousands of our soldiers dying horrifying deaths or being severely wounded during the Cold War

thanks to the short sighted profit driven policies of FDR and Truman

https://me.yahoo.com/a/gp8pfnMow5NejGbLakU7xp0sff8F.JUuVA--#e3d83 wrote:

Graven, are you saying its ok to kill civilians in a nuclear attack, as long as the offical statement does not mention the deliberate killing of civilians ?
..................................

More meretricious crap from the "yahoo salad". The United States had been fighting a years' long *defensive war* after we were attacked by Japan.

Japan would not stop attacking us, and continued even after their vile Axis allies fell. They were not about to stop until we were able to convince them that their entire society would be destroyed if they did not.

It is abundantly clear that the Allies had no desire to hit civilians targets, and it was done only as a last resort. This was true in both the European and Pacific theaters.

Your implication that they really did relish hitting civilians, but were—what?—merely too cagey to say so, is just grotesque.

As soon as Japan did stop their aggression against us, we stopped fighting, and helped them rebuild their country.

More crap:

Are you saying that Truman did not know there were christians in the city of Nagasaki ?
..................................

What a ludicrous question. Of course Truman knew that there were some Christians in Nagasaki—there were are small minority of Christians in most large Japanese cities. As I noted, the US would have preferred to avoid *all* civilian casualties.

And your implication that Truman, for some reason, targeted Christians makes no sense. For one thing, the weather that day was famously overcast. The bomb did not hit its target area, because the pilots were not able to see it.

But your implication that the US would *only* have been concerned with Christian casualties is bullsh*t, as well.

A minor point, but I find your addressing me as "Graven" offensive. My friends and colleagues here call me "Graven", and you have abundantly proven that you are neither—not to me, or to any other Infidel.

Of course, I don't find that nearly as offensive as the rest of your ugly spewings here.

ssa wrote:

Graveimage, thanks for story of a lonely church in Pakistan. I enjoyed reading it. Thanks to Youssef too for many stories about the Christians in Maghreb. Nice meeting all of Jihad Wathcher. Merry Christmas.
.............................

Merry Christmas to you as well, ssa!

I wish I could take credit for the story about that very lonely and precarious Christian congregation in Pakistan, but this was posted intitialy by the ugly Muslim troll, above, in order to imply—absurdly—that Muslims always "protect" Christians.

I just commented on the story. I Imagine all those threatned Christians could do with our prayers.

I also appreciate Youssef's stories about Christians in the Mahgreb—many of them are stories I would not see otherwise. I wish him a Happy Christmas, as well!

Graven, you said that Japan would not stop attacking us.

Japan stopped attacking in 1942 when they were primarily fighting a defensive war

and were not able to take back any territory lost to the allies

so why did FDR not declare a cease fire when Japan was on the defensive in 1942 ?

Graven you said "the US would have preferred to avoid *all* civilian casualties"

if the US preferred to avoid all civilian casualties,

why not call for a cease fire as soon as Japan was not able to take back any territory lost to the Allies in 1942 ?

in other words, as soon as Japan was defeated in 1942,

why not call for a cease fire in 1942 instead of burning alive civilians in scores of cities in 1945 ?

This must be an indication of the arab mindset.

We start a war, get our ass kicked, and then we demand the fighting stop on our terms without us issuing a formal surrender..

Sound familiar?

You don't end wars on ceasfires... that just pushes the problems to the future. Thats why we have 30,000 US troops in Korea.. Thats why WW2 happened.. Germany was not forced to surrender at the end of WW1.

Fighting a defensive war.. ? So that means the US should have left the Philippines to the Japanese? And China? ANd Koreas?

Your a real pal..

Good post, bigdakine.

bigdakine, you seem to have some points.

Do you have twitter or facebook, so I can follow you, thanks

Graven, are you saying its ok to burn alive tens of thousands of children and babies, as long as it serves the greater good ?

Graven, here is the full report :

Human Rights Watch said in a report released last week that Israel's killing of two Palestinian journalists and attacks on media facilities during the escalation last month violated the laws of war. Earlier this month, the organization said that an IDF strike on the home of the Dalu family in Gaza City, in which 12 civilians were killed “was a clear violation of the laws of war.” :

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/human-rights-watch-palestinians-committed-war-crimes-during-gaza-war.premium-1.489649

bigdakine, I feel I must reply at greater length—you make some *very* important points.

You wrote, in reply to the Muslim troll "yahoo salad":

This must be an indication of the arab mindset.

We start a war, get our ass kicked, and then we demand the fighting stop on our terms without us issuing a formal surrender..
..................................

You are exactly right, and answer an important point I have noticed brought up by Muslim apologists more and more these day. It is not only that they don't want victims to fight back against savagery—though this is certainly true—but more, they don't want those attacked *to win*.

*That* is why they always bring up the invasion of Berlin and America's reluctant use of nuclear weapons to defeat the Japanese—they don't believe the Allies should actually have won the war against the Fascists.

As they would have it, the Axis would have continued running the death camps in Europe and using Manchuria and Korea for slave labor.

And—even more than this—they could have regrouped and attacked the Allies again and again over the years, yelling "Hudna" anytime the Allies appeared to be winning.

There is a good chance, if we had taken such a tack that we would *still be fighting today*, with God knows how many more millions dead.

Either that, or the Axis would have worn us down and won by this point, and we would all be living under the horrors of Fascism—those of us who survived its horrors, that is.

And why would Muslim apologists like "yahoo salad" care about this? Because that is exactly what he wants the civilized world to do when endlessly attacked by Jihadists.

The only minor change I might suggest to your excellent comments is that this is the *Muslim* mindset, not an Arab one—in other words, this is an ideological trait, not an ethnic one.

Again, thank you for your keen insight.

And a Merry Christmas to you!

Graven, you said " It is not only that they don't want victims to fight back against savagery"

The question is

Should the US government be punishing innocent kids by burning alive tens of thousands of innocent kids and babies for the savagery of the Japanese government ?

or should the US government be punishing the Japanese government instead of punishing the innocent kids ?

Dumble, the question still remains :

The question is

Should the US government be punishing innocent kids by burning alive tens of thousands of innocent kids and babies for the savagery of the Japanese government ?

or should the US government be punishing the Japanese government instead of punishing the innocent kids ?

Bigdakine, you said " You don't end wars on ceasfires"

many wars have ended well due to ceasefires,

and not unconditional surrenders:

(1) Revolutionary war where the Americans did not ask for the unconditional surrender of Britain’s homeland

(2) War with Canada where the Canadians were not asked for unconditional surrender of Canada

(3) War with Mexico where the Mexicans were not asked for the unconditional surrender of Mexico

(4) War with Spain where the Spanish were not asked for unconditional surrender of their homeland

(5) War with North Vietnam where North Vietnam was not asked for unconditional surrender

(6) War with North Korea where North Korea was not asked for unconditional surrender

(7) War with China during the Korean war where China was not asked for unconditional surrender

"I advocate that Muslims be deported from civilized countries. How's that?"

I'll see you, and raise you: I advocate that all Muslim citizens of Western countries should be stripped of their citizenship and deported.

Your turn.

"who first appeared here three years ago as 'loveverybody' (ROFLMAO), then as '45ch', and then as 'peter'."

Would you say he's also "dave"? Or was that another guy?

If it is dave, I've kept a juicy refutation of his claims in my files:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/new-german-study-boys-growing-up-in-pious-muslim-families-are-more-likely-to-be-violent.html#comment-689446

You have to read the thread before that post to know how a reader "Chrischan74" (whom I have never seen before or since) definitively lanced the human boil "dave" in that one comment.

No, dave742 is not, I think, identical with 45ch/ peter/ loveverybody/ JuUVa'.

*Both* threadjackers/ bandersnatches, dementors, and - I think - Mohammedans in masks rather than dhimmis, and both obnoxious, but different people.

Their writing style - tone, favoured vocabulary and talking points, and way of laying things out - is quite different.