urby you and I seem to think the same way.. that said, I think George Carlin said it best, men and their dicks are the reason why wars break out. Too bad people can't chill. War sucks and you'd think after years and years of killing one another things would get old. I prefer things to change for the better though I don't have "religion" clouting my head. Though it may or may not be religion that's really the issue, though I say revert back to the *** theory.
Ok, so by that line of thinking, the things that were done YEARS AND YEARS ago make what Hamas is doing today ok...
That's pretty obtuse, Puro. I explicitly said I did not defend what Hamas is doing, nor does my "line of thinking" justify it. I'm not defending Hamas; I'm pointing out that Israel isn't innocent, either.
My personal opinion, not that it matters, is that BOTH sides are behaving stupidly and illegally, and they pretty much deserve each other. I'd love to see them come to peace, but I don't think the U.S. or anybody else can broker such a peace until both sides want peace. And right now NEITHER side wants peace. Continued low-grade war serves the political interests of leaders on both sides. The main reason I want to see us get off of oil is so we no longer have any strategic interest whatsoever in that region, and can tell them all to go *** themselves. Israel included. When they WANT peace, let us know, and we'll be happy to help. Until then, their problems are just that: their problems.
As for the notion that "things that were done YEARS AND YEARS ago" makes things done today okay, weren't you cheering kuzi's argument for the relevance of the world's history of Antisemitism, just a couple of hours ago? (Just for the record, I think it's relevant, too. But you can't cherry-pick history. If the world's long history of antisemitism is relevant, so is Israel's history of bad behavior toward the Palestinians over the past 20 years.)
PuroFreak:
I think it's a just fight to end the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians.
I don't mean this as a personal remark, Puro. You're a bright guy. But that statement strikes me as very naive.
Just a little note on this topic again... I wouldn't call this "low-grade war." This is pretty much a full blown ass kicking that is MORE than deserved and WAY passed due!
its interesting how people see the same thing in a very different light.
heres how i see what is going on right now (with no regard for the past): both sides are blowin eachother up. both sides have killed civilians. Hamas is launching rockets targeted at neighborhoods, temples, and the populous at large. Israel is bombing the sites that Hamas is launching rockets from and the they are also bombing the leaders of Hamas personally. it just so happens that Hamas is launching rockets from temples, schools, and marketplaces so they can use civilians as human shields. just a thought.
oh, urbi, when you said:
"I'd love to see them come to peace, but I don't think the U.S. or anybody else can broker such a peace until both sides want peace. And right now NEITHER side wants peace. Continued low-grade war serves the political interests of leaders on both sides. The main reason I want to see us get off of oil is so we no longer have any strategic interest whatsoever in that region, and can tell them all to go *** themselves..."
i not 100% on this but i dont think that ive ever agreed with you more. ... at least with those lines.
i dont wanna turn this into an energy debate, but its so freakin frustrating that we have the ability to go to a new fuel but we dont. I guess it has to be more profitable than oil for us to do that. ... at this rate it could be a while.
its interesting how people see the same thing in a very different light.
heres how i see what is going on right now (with no regard for the past): both sides are blowin eachother up. both sides have killed civilians. Hamas is launching rockets targeted at neighborhoods, temples, and the populous at large. Israel is bombing the sites that Hamas is launching rockets from and the they are also bombing the leaders of Hamas personally. it just so happens that Hamas is launching rockets from temples, schools, and marketplaces so they can use civilians as human shields. just a thought.
oh, urbi, when you said:
"I'd love to see them come to peace, but I don't think the U.S. or anybody else can broker such a peace until both sides want peace. And right now NEITHER side wants peace. Continued low-grade war serves the political interests of leaders on both sides. The main reason I want to see us get off of oil is so we no longer have any strategic interest whatsoever in that region, and can tell them all to go *** themselves..."
i not 100% on this but i dont think that ive ever agreed with you more. ... at least with those lines.
i dont wanna turn this into an energy debate, but its so freakin frustrating that we have the ability to go to a new fuel but we dont. I guess it has to be more profitable than oil for us to do that. ... at this rate it could be a while.
With the sheer scale of the KILLING going on in the Mid East, which CAN NOT be justified for ANY reason and then seeing comments here which just do not reflect what is going on in any true sense of reality. My soul aches for the people of the Gaza area. They are people and all the words in the world no matter how eloquently spoken , or perversley twisted can change the fact that people are getting killed in numbers which should be repugnant to any CIVILIZED person.
I think I will take a break from here for a while. I won't allow myself to get drawn into these kinds of hate threads. This is a low point here at the C.COM forums. IMO I'm out.
You know what, it sucks... It just plain sucks that anyone has to die from wars... 95% of the time they could be resolved if people would just grow up and leave everyone else alone... BUT IT WON'T EVER FUCKING HAPPEN!
I don't see this as a low point for this forum, all that is taking place is a bunch of good people discussing current events and venting a little bit. There is a lot of crazy *** going on in the world and it's just about enough to drive people nuts if we let it. But by getting on here and venting a little bit and discussing and seeing other peoples views on things, it helps us to see that our opinions aren't the only ones out there and we have to respect each other no matter how you see things. Urbi is one guy on here that I disagree with on MANY issues, but he honestly seems like a nice guy and I'd probably enjoy having a smoke and a drink and talking football with him. I respect him and his opninions even if I believe he is totally wrong. This isn't a "low point"... This is what freedom of speech is all about.
P.S. I'm sorry we aren't as "CIVILIZED" as you are Captain Condescending...
your soul doesnt ache for the Israelis at all? with their civilians as targets? hmmm. interesting.
laker1963:
.... I think I will take a break from here for a while. I won't allow myself to get drawn into these kinds of hate threads. This is a low point here at the C.COM forums. IMO I'm out.
ok... ummm... discussing wold events is a low point?
we all have opinions. we all have skewed views. we all watch TV, listen to the radio, read the paper, read internet news sites. every single one of them has a bias if they admit it or not.
trying to make sence out of it via open discussion and debate with open intellectual honesty should be viewed as a high point, not a low point.
Since i happen to be very connected to the Jewish community, i have my biases. other people have their biases as well. Im just callin it as I see it. the beginnings of this war are older than many main stream religions are. its been going on for over 3 millennium. I cant sit here and pretend to understand all of it. but what i can do is look at theories how to end it.
it seems like the culture of Islam has issues with almost every society...even some of their own. (im not saying that they do but it seems that way) It also seems that a good portion of wars in the world right now have ties to Islamic extremists.
I won't allow myself to get drawn into these kinds of hate threads.
this line bugs me a bit.
"hate thread"
I "hate" because i think Israel has a right as a nation to defend itself? I "hate" because Hamas is a front group to Iran who wants the Jewis people wiped off the map? I "hate" because i stand up for the most repressed group of people in the history of the world? I "hate" because I have no sympathy when Israel kills people from a terrorist group that straps bombs on themselves and runs into a Jewish market filled with women and children? I "hate" because i do have sympathy for Jews and the lives lost on their side?
laker1963:
seeing comments here which just do not reflect what is going on in any true sense of reality.
I won't allow myself to get drawn into these kinds of hate threads.
this line bugs me a bit.
"hate thread"
I "hate" because i think Israel has a right as a nation to defend itself? I "hate" because Hamas is a front group to Iran who wants the Jewis people wiped off the map? I "hate" because i stand up for the most repressed group of people in the history of the world? I "hate" because I have no sympathy when Israel kills people from a terrorist group that straps bombs on themselves and runs into a Jewish market filled with women and children? I "hate" because i do have sympathy for Jews and the lives lost on their side?
laker1963:
seeing comments here which just do not reflect what is going on in any true sense of reality.
enlighten me then. show me how i am wrong.
NO Kuzi you seem to HATE because you and others are just accepting the Israeli version of EVERYTHING and then using that to support your arguements. I have heard it repeatedly said here about Hamas strapping bombs to themselves and running into crowded markets full of women and children. I am sure that this may have happened in the past, but since it has not been plastered all over the front page of every leading newspaper in the West then I assume this attack happened a long time ago now and yet it is one of the few successful attack Hamas has carried out so you constantly go back to it in referrence. Tell us the date that this happened so we can check some facts.
Have you been into the Gaza strip in the past few days Kuzi? Thought not. Yet you repeat claims from the Isrealis that militants are using their compounds to fire missiles from. The U.N> says that that just is not the case, Yet you repeat the IDF lines and did not include in your remarks the facts about the UN, or the White Phosphorus being used against civilians. Misinformation or selected use of relevant information is also a form of hate. Preventing the truth to surface is very much a crime of hate. You have NO more idea of what is going on then anybody else outside of Gaza. The only thing we know for sure is that well over a thousand people have been KILLED in this invasion. You asked me about why my soul did not ache for Israel? WHere did you get that from. More selective hearing and misuse of information? I said my soul ached for the people of Gaza because that is where people are being killed !! Of the 13 Isrealis killed in this invasion the IDF claim that 10 were friendly fire. That leaves 3 people who have been killed on the Isreali side and ten they killed themselves. I feel for anybody who gets tied up in a war waged for power and ideology. The people who are being killed in Gaza are also women and children, but you would have us believe they are all Hamas militants who deserve to die. Again any proof or just more towing the company line? Just to add some context to my remark, they were in general and not just confined to the Mid East. I can't believe there are people who are willing to kill other people for any reason and then sit back and justify their actions. Kill someone who who sets off a home made rocket in the US, even if they have damaged your home car and everything you own and you will go to jail. Do it right now in the Mid East and you are an Isreali war hero,... hmmm
Where did you hear me state that I had no compassion or did not feel anything for the Isreali people. I never mentioned the Palestinians by name, I referred to people in the region in general. You do make a point though. I am not the kind of person who after witnessing a 10th grade bully beat up on a kindergarten kid then goes over to the 10th grader to make sure he didn't get hurt during the atlercation. That's not to say I don't like the boy, or have no concern for him as a human being. It is just obvious that the kindergarten kid is going to need a lot more help and concern to deal with his issues. That is a reality. What would you suggest in your compassion, should be done after this messy little incident goes away? More fences, more settlements on occupied land? All is fair if you are an Isreali and keeping a whole race of people firmly under your boot is how to foster love and acceptance. Unlike you Kuzi I feel for everyone who has been killed in Gaza or the area at large including the 13 Isreali people. It is when I compare that number even just to the over 400 innocent civilians killed on the Palestinian side it just pales. And I don't want to hear about those people being there because of their support for Hamas. They are trapped in a war zone by the Isreali army and any deaths (civilian or otherwise) is the responsibilty of the IDF. That means that while they may kill a huge number of Hamas fighters, they will ALWAYS be reponsible for the CIVILIAN deaths they caused, just as the US or any other army is responsible for civilian deaths in any conflict. Tell me Kuzi, do you think there will be or should be any IDF soldiers facing a court one day when this is settled again, dealing with the hundreds of deaths of innocent civilians? I am not talking of isolated incidences here. I am refferring to the question of hundreds of dead innocent civilians.
The people are responsible for the actions of their government. If it is the will of the Israeli people to kill Palestinians, then so be it. They need to be willing to deal with the consequences. If not, then they need to make changes. It works the other way also. The problem is that too many good people are willing to stand by and allow others to ruin their nation and their lives. I'm not taking sides. The reality is, I won't feel sorry for myself or any other American if or when there is another massive attack from a Muslim terrorist group. We've created more terrorists through our campaigns in the middle east than we were deealing with in the beginning. We've imprisoned and tortured innocent people without evidence, we've killed innocent civillians, hell, we've ruined an entire country without cause. You can either accept the consequences of the actions of those around you or you can make a change. Either way, you will live with the consequences of you action or inaction.
Your info on the number of Israeli deaths is totally wrong. That is the number of deaths of Israeli soldiers INSIDE Gaza during the invasion. You are forgetting the people killed from the rocket attacks from NOT ONLY HAMAS, but Hezbola as well.
Also the numbers of Hamas militants VS. civillians killed are VERY skewd because a LARGE number of Hamas terrorists killed are considered civillians since they aren't part of an actual sanctioned military. Many of those civillian casualties were operating mortar tubes and AK-47s.
Also you are WRONG about something else you posted
"Kill someone who who sets off a home made rocket in the US, even if they have damaged your home car and everything you own and you will go to jail."
Obviously Canadians aren't very familiar with the state of TEXAS! We have something here called the Castle Laws which state you are within your legal rights to use any force, up to and including DEADLY force to protect yourself, your home, your property, and your family... You don't have to fire a rocket at my house, just come force open my car door while I'm in it and I can put one right between your eyes and go eat dinner with my wife and child afterwards. And your damn right I would do it too, especially if my wife and child are in the car with me at the time...
Your info on the number of Israeli deaths is totally wrong. That is the number of deaths of Israeli soldiers INSIDE Gaza during the invasion. You are forgetting the people killed from the rocket attacks from NOT ONLY HAMAS, but Hezbola as well.
Also the numbers of Hamas militants VS. civillians killed are VERY skewd because a LARGE number of Hamas terrorists killed are considered civillians since they aren't part of an actual sanctioned military. Many of those civillian casualties were operating mortar tubes and AK-47s.
Also you are WRONG about something else you posted
"Kill someone who who sets off a home made rocket in the US, even if they have damaged your home car and everything you own and you will go to jail."
Obviously Canadians aren't very familiar with the state of TEXAS! We have something here called the Castle Laws which state you are within your legal rights to use any force, up to and including DEADLY force to protect yourself, your home, your property, and your family... You don't have to fire a rocket at my house, just come force open my car door while I'm in it and I can put one right between your eyes and go eat dinner with my wife and child afterwards. And your damn right I would do it too, especially if my wife and child are in the car with me at the time...
i feel bad about the civillian deaths on both sides. i never said there werent any civilians being killed in gaza. ... and to be honest you are taking hamas at their word. why would you do that? they are a known and admitted terrorist group.
hamas said they would not stop firing rockets. what is israel supposed to do? let them? personally id take out this Iranian front group too. those leaders and hamas terrorists are in mosques and schools. its been their MO for years... civilians will die in that situation. all hamas has to do is not fight from those places.
and with all due respect, sir, have you been to gaza in the last few days?
Your info on the number of Israeli deaths is totally wrong. That is the number of deaths of Israeli soldiers INSIDE Gaza during the invasion. You are forgetting the people killed from the rocket attacks from NOT ONLY HAMAS, but Hezbola as well.
Also the numbers of Hamas militants VS. civillians killed are VERY skewd because a LARGE number of Hamas terrorists killed are considered civillians since they aren't part of an actual sanctioned military. Many of those civillian casualties were operating mortar tubes and AK-47s.
Also you are WRONG about something else you posted
"Kill someone who who sets off a home made rocket in the US, even if they have damaged your home car and everything you own and you will go to jail."
Obviously Canadians aren't very familiar with the state of TEXAS! We have something here called the Castle Laws which state you are within your legal rights to use any force, up to and including DEADLY force to protect yourself, your home, your property, and your family... You don't have to fire a rocket at my house, just come force open my car door while I'm in it and I can put one right between your eyes and go eat dinner with my wife and child afterwards. And your damn right I would do it too, especially if my wife and child are in the car with me at the time...
Anyone want to have a serious discussion on this?
that law is true. and it does support his argument.
Why don't you start by supplying facts , and dates and useful information, Puro.?
You argue from extremes and provide absolutely NOTHING in factual information. Are you actually in law enforcement Puro?
Here ya go!
"A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force - including deadly force - against an invader of the home.[1] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Dirty Harry in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day."
This legal doctrine is often linked to the rights of homeowners to bear arms, as defined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller."
Why don't you start by supplying facts , and dates and useful information, Puro.?
You argue from extremes and provide absolutely NOTHING in factual information. Are you actually in law enforcement Puro?
Here ya go!
"A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine.
Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force - including deadly force - against an invader of the home.[1] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Dirty Harry in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day."
This legal doctrine is often linked to the rights of homeowners to bear arms, as defined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller."
puro, you may want to link to a source or at least name it (if its hard copy) in all fairness just putting quotes around things is not quite a reference.
Ok, here ya go, this is just the first one I found. If anyone has a problem with this one let me know and I'll go to the freakin DPS website and get it.
i didnt have a problem with it. I just thought that others may. and if we are trying to discuss this honestly we should use referenced facts as often as we can.
80R664 RMB-F
By: Driver H.B. No. 284
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section
30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending
Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as
follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was
immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed
to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the
person against whom the force was used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against
whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity
at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before
using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether
an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the
use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider
whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force
against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably
believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the
deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that
subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had
reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was
used:
(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment of the actor; or
(3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense
described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by
Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against
a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense
of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location
where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person
against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in
criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not
required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this
section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative
defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death
that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was
justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C,
Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the
time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry
in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is
amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:
Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER
EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative
defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff
all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was
lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.
SECTION 6. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as
amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after
the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the
offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for
this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is
committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of
the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as
amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action
that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action
that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by
the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is
continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
***********************************************************************
Are you guys serious??? I don't give a *** whether you can legally kill someone while defending your property. I used that analogy to make a point. You guys twisted into a guy finding someone in the act of committing a property crime and the residents legal right to use deadly force. (we aren't fucking stupid up here you know). That is NO comparison to what I said, so I'll try again. You come home and you find your house has been destroyed by a guy down the street when he was shooting off a home made rocket. You know who the guy is. If you go and just kill him, and try to use the defense you suggested, you are going to go to jail. PERIOD. That is MURDER. NOT DEFENSE. That seems to be the same mistake that the Isrealis make over and over again. When someone with a home made rocket launches it against Isreal, the Isrealis use it as a context to go in and bomb and destroy innocnet civilians lives and property. That is also a crime. You can justify it any way you like, because you are really only trying to make yourself feel better about what you know is inherently wrong, and amounts to a crime against humanity. Just for the record Kuzi, I am getting my facts from many sources some of which include the UN, CBC, BBC, Aljezeera, on-line etc. I am NOT relying on HAMAS for news, I am using reliable sources, not one of the combatants. That would obviously lead to skewed or outright false information which I would not rely on to make definative statements. But you guys feel free.
HAHAHA Thats the funniest thing I've heard on here when you said you get your news from Aljezeera!!! OMFG!!! hahaha The MOST bias twisted "news" source EVER...
Seriously, Aljezeera is 99.9% propaganda... I wouldn't admit to getting actual news from that source about current afairs. They are ALWAYS going to slant to fit the Islamic point of view.
HAHAHA Thats the funniest thing I've heard on here when you said you get your news from Aljezeera!!! OMFG!!! hahaha The MOST bias twisted "news" source EVER...
Um, no that would be your CNN, or most of the other main "News" sources in the US who don't even cover stories around the world that they don't find sexy enough for the evening news. You should try and read something from outside of the US some time Puro. There is a big world going on all around you. Stretch your views a little there Puro, it won't hurt a bit. Do you have any fact which show Aljezeera news is biased or flasified? More of your very narrow views? You say lots Puro, how 'bout backing some of it up. And I am not talking about that laughable attempt to change the subject earlier with the Use Of Deadly Force laws. That was just silly.
LMFAO I love to listen to you talk about backing something up when you haven't back a fucking thing you have said up... I dont' watch CNN and you don't know WHAT news sources I watch or read. I actually HATE CNN... You are the one that needs to get your facts straight before you go spouting off about what other peoples "NARROW VIEWS" are. You asked me to back up something a while ago and I found you several sources. One directly from the state law site. I have yet to see you back up a single alegation you've made with anything other than emotional outbursts that make you lose all credibillity..
LMFAO I love to listen to you talk about backing something up when you haven't back a fucking thing you have said up... I dont' watch CNN and you don't know WHAT news sources I watch or read. I actually HATE CNN... You are the one that needs to get your facts straight before you go spouting off about what other peoples "NARROW VIEWS" are. You asked me to back up something a while ago and I found you several sources. One directly from the state law site. I have yet to see you back up a single alegation you've made with anything other than emotional outbursts that make you lose all credibillity..
Sorry if I offended you Puro, BUT... When I asked you a question regarding the situation in Gaza you turned it into a discussion of Home owners rights in the State of Texas !!! Your response had nothing to do with the statement I made and, instead commenting on my statement, you tried to turn it into something else. You still never commented on the actual statements I made in that post. You mention that I have not backed up what I said? What would you like pages of web links, actual written copies of stories, video's of Gaza? You tell me what evidence would entice you to even consider it. I thought Law Enforcement people should have open minds and would let evidence lead them, instead of looking for supporting evidence and then letting their beliefs in that evidence to lead them? WTF
When someone with a home made rocket launches it against Isreal, the Isrealis use it as a context to go in and bomb and destroy innocnet civilians lives and property. That is also a crime. You can justify it any way you like, because you are really only trying to make yourself feel better about what you know is inherently wrong, and amounts to a crime against humanity. Just for the record Kuzi, I am getting my facts from many sources some of which include the UN, CBC, BBC, Aljezeera, on-line etc. I am NOT relying on HAMAS for news, I am using reliable sources, not one of the combatants. That would obviously lead to skewed or outright false information which I would not rely on to make definative statements. But you guys feel free.
if you noticed on my last post on the last page i used the BBC a few times here as reference articles.
what do you suggest Israel do when for years on end, hamas lobs rockets into their nation? sit there and take it? thats just dumb.
Aljezeera??! hamas and Aljezeera have many connections. how can you say they are unbiased?
Actually I answered your arguement very well, and you even thought I had too when you tried to call me out to back up my side of it. Then I did back it up with the actual state laws and thats when you said that my comparison didn't really apply. You are changing your story when it seems like you don't have the upper hand. You would make a DAMN GOOD politician! haha
When someone with a home made rocket launches it against Isreal, the Isrealis use it as a context to go in and bomb and destroy innocnet civilians lives and property. That is also a crime. You can justify it any way you like, because you are really only trying to make yourself feel better about what you know is inherently wrong, and amounts to a crime against humanity. Just for the record Kuzi, I am getting my facts from many sources some of which include the UN, CBC, BBC, Aljezeera, on-line etc. I am NOT relying on HAMAS for news, I am using reliable sources, not one of the combatants. That would obviously lead to skewed or outright false information which I would not rely on to make definative statements. But you guys feel free.
if you noticed on my last post on the last page i used the BBC a few times here as reference articles.
what do you suggest Israel do when for years on end, hamas lobs rockets into their nation? sit there and take it? thats just dumb.
Aljezeera??! hamas and Aljezeera have many connections. how can you say they are unbiased?
Would you please show me where I said Aljezeera is not biased? ALL information coming from ANY source is biased, that is an unchangeable truth. We all filter information thru our own beliefs and experiences. I also mentioned the UN... I am sure you will repeat (without actual knowledge) the IDF line about militants firing from those positions first. But just as a side note to that point of view. I would put it to you that while unfortunate if the Hamas militants were doing exactly that, then it behooves the IDF or any other superior army to protect the civilians while routing out these guerillas' fighting tactics. Why do the IDF not do that? Because it would cause for too many casualties on the Isreali side. If you would rather kill innocent civilians then see your soldiers die or get injured in an actual fight with the other side, I would question both your morals and your cowardice Are you and Puro now speaking as one person? I made those comments to Puro, not you. I did indeed see the referrences you posted. I am sure you are aware of the volumes of evidence which refutes all these comments / statements so it comes down to what you believe. The thing which is not open for discussion is the number of people who are being killed and THAT is what I commented on from the very beggining.
Look guys...I am no news source....I'm just a guy that lives in Southeast Ohio that enjoys smoking a cigar with the homies on good days...BBC does not know what is going on inside the minds of Israelis or anyone else. Sometimes I don't know that's going on with me. I have found that everything I know is subject to revision, especially what I know about the truth. So please, stop using me as a reference, cause you guys lost me at homemade rocket launchers and such.
This was just a joke! Please do not take it seriously or personally, just thought this soap opera needed some comic relief
Comments
heres how i see what is going on right now (with no regard for the past):
both sides are blowin eachother up. both sides have killed civilians.
Hamas is launching rockets targeted at neighborhoods, temples, and the populous at large.
Israel is bombing the sites that Hamas is launching rockets from and the they are also bombing the leaders of Hamas personally. it just so happens that Hamas is launching rockets from temples, schools, and marketplaces so they can use civilians as human shields.
just a thought.
oh, urbi, when you said:
"I'd love to see them come to peace, but I don't think the U.S. or anybody else can broker such a peace until both sides want peace. And right now NEITHER side wants peace. Continued low-grade war serves the political interests of leaders on both sides. The main reason I want to see us get off of oil is so we no longer have any strategic interest whatsoever in that region, and can tell them all to go *** themselves..."
i not 100% on this but i dont think that ive ever agreed with you more. ... at least with those lines.
i dont wanna turn this into an energy debate, but its so freakin frustrating that we have the ability to go to a new fuel but we dont. I guess it has to be more profitable than oil for us to do that. ... at this rate it could be a while.
With the sheer scale of the KILLING going on in the Mid East, which CAN NOT be justified for ANY reason and then seeing comments here which just do not reflect what is going on in any true sense of reality. My soul aches for the people of the Gaza area. They are people and all the words in the world no matter how eloquently spoken , or perversley twisted can change the fact that people are getting killed in numbers which should be repugnant to any CIVILIZED person.
I think I will take a break from here for a while. I won't allow myself to get drawn into these kinds of hate threads. This is a low point here at the C.COM forums. IMO
I'm out.
I don't see this as a low point for this forum, all that is taking place is a bunch of good people discussing current events and venting a little bit. There is a lot of crazy *** going on in the world and it's just about enough to drive people nuts if we let it. But by getting on here and venting a little bit and discussing and seeing other peoples views on things, it helps us to see that our opinions aren't the only ones out there and we have to respect each other no matter how you see things. Urbi is one guy on here that I disagree with on MANY issues, but he honestly seems like a nice guy and I'd probably enjoy having a smoke and a drink and talking football with him. I respect him and his opninions even if I believe he is totally wrong. This isn't a "low point"... This is what freedom of speech is all about.
P.S. I'm sorry we aren't as "CIVILIZED" as you are Captain Condescending...
we all have opinions. we all have skewed views. we all watch TV, listen to the radio, read the paper, read internet news sites.
every single one of them has a bias if they admit it or not.
trying to make sence out of it via open discussion and debate with open intellectual honesty should be viewed as a high point, not a low point.
Since i happen to be very connected to the Jewish community, i have my biases. other people have their biases as well.
Im just callin it as I see it. the beginnings of this war are older than many main stream religions are. its been going on for over 3 millennium. I cant sit here and pretend to understand all of it. but what i can do is look at theories how to end it.
it seems like the culture of Islam has issues with almost every society...even some of their own. (im not saying that they do but it seems that way) It also seems that a good portion of wars in the world right now have ties to Islamic extremists.
"hate thread"
I "hate" because i think Israel has a right as a nation to defend itself?
I "hate" because Hamas is a front group to Iran who wants the Jewis people wiped off the map?
I "hate" because i stand up for the most repressed group of people in the history of the world?
I "hate" because I have no sympathy when Israel kills people from a terrorist group that straps bombs on themselves and runs into a Jewish market filled with women and children?
I "hate" because i do have sympathy for Jews and the lives lost on their side?
enlighten me then. show me how i am wrong.
NO Kuzi you seem to HATE because you and others are just accepting the Israeli version of EVERYTHING and then using that to support your arguements.
I have heard it repeatedly said here about Hamas strapping bombs to themselves and running into crowded markets full of women and children. I am sure that this may have happened in the past, but since it has not been plastered all over the front page of every leading newspaper in the West then I assume this attack happened a long time ago now and yet it is one of the few successful attack Hamas has carried out so you constantly go back to it in referrence. Tell us the date that this happened so we can check some facts.
Have you been into the Gaza strip in the past few days Kuzi? Thought not. Yet you repeat claims from the Isrealis that militants are using their compounds to fire missiles from. The U.N> says that that just is not the case, Yet you repeat the IDF lines and did not include in your remarks the facts about the UN, or the White Phosphorus being used against civilians. Misinformation or selected use of relevant information is also a form of hate. Preventing the truth to surface is very much a crime of hate. You have NO more idea of what is going on then anybody else outside of Gaza.
The only thing we know for sure is that well over a thousand people have been KILLED in this invasion.
You asked me about why my soul did not ache for Israel? WHere did you get that from. More selective hearing and misuse of information? I said my soul ached for the people of Gaza because that is where people are being killed !!
Of the 13 Isrealis killed in this invasion the IDF claim that 10 were friendly fire. That leaves 3 people who have been killed on the Isreali side and ten they killed themselves.
I feel for anybody who gets tied up in a war waged for power and ideology. The people who are being killed in Gaza are also women and children, but you would have us believe they are all Hamas militants who deserve to die. Again any proof or just more towing the company line?
Just to add some context to my remark, they were in general and not just confined to the Mid East. I can't believe there are people who are willing to kill other people for any reason and then sit back and justify their actions. Kill someone who who sets off a home made rocket in the US, even if they have damaged your home car and everything you own and you will go to jail. Do it right now in the Mid East and you are an Isreali war hero,... hmmm
Where did you hear me state that I had no compassion or did not feel anything for the Isreali people. I never mentioned the Palestinians by name, I referred to people in the region in general. You do make a point though. I am not the kind of person who after witnessing a 10th grade bully beat up on a kindergarten kid then goes over to the 10th grader to make sure he didn't get hurt during the atlercation. That's not to say I don't like the boy, or have no concern for him as a human being. It is just obvious that the kindergarten kid is going to need a lot more help and concern to deal with his issues. That is a reality.
What would you suggest in your compassion, should be done after this messy little incident goes away? More fences, more settlements on occupied land? All is fair if you are an Isreali and keeping a whole race of people firmly under your boot is how to foster love and acceptance.
Unlike you Kuzi I feel for everyone who has been killed in Gaza or the area at large including the 13 Isreali people. It is when I compare that number even just to the over 400 innocent civilians killed on the Palestinian side it just pales. And I don't want to hear about those people being there because of their support for Hamas. They are trapped in a war zone by the Isreali army and any deaths (civilian or otherwise) is the responsibilty of the IDF. That means that while they may kill a huge number of Hamas fighters, they will ALWAYS be reponsible for the CIVILIAN deaths they caused, just as the US or any other army is responsible for civilian deaths in any conflict.
Tell me Kuzi, do you think there will be or should be any IDF soldiers facing a court one day when this is settled again, dealing with the hundreds of deaths of innocent civilians? I am not talking of isolated incidences here. I am refferring to the question of hundreds of dead innocent civilians.
Also the numbers of Hamas militants VS. civillians killed are VERY skewd because a LARGE number of Hamas terrorists killed are considered civillians since they aren't part of an actual sanctioned military. Many of those civillian casualties were operating mortar tubes and AK-47s.
Also you are WRONG about something else you posted
"Kill someone who who sets off a home made rocket in the US, even if they have damaged your home car and everything you own and you will go to jail."
Obviously Canadians aren't very familiar with the state of TEXAS! We have something here called the Castle Laws which state you are within your legal rights to use any force, up to and including DEADLY force to protect yourself, your home, your property, and your family... You don't have to fire a rocket at my house, just come force open my car door while I'm in it and I can put one right between your eyes and go eat dinner with my wife and child afterwards. And your damn right I would do it too, especially if my wife and child are in the car with me at the time...
Anyone want to have a serious discussion on this?
You argue from extremes and provide absolutely NOTHING in factual information.
Are you actually in law enforcement Puro?
hamas said they would not stop firing rockets. what is israel supposed to do? let them?
personally id take out this Iranian front group too. those leaders and hamas terrorists are in mosques and schools. its been their MO for years... civilians will die in that situation. all hamas has to do is not fight from those places.
and with all due respect, sir, have you been to gaza in the last few days?
i didnt think so.
as for recent stories:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/31/mideast/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3395973.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2982068.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1997012.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6744713.stm
hamas breaking truce this time: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/24/gaza.truce/
"A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force - including deadly force - against an invader of the home.[1] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Dirty Harry in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day." This legal doctrine is often linked to the rights of homeowners to bear arms, as defined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller."
you may want to link to a source or at least name it (if its hard copy)
in all fairness just putting quotes around things is not quite a reference.
...that and i wanna read more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
and i wanted to read more.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB00284I.htm
80R664 RMB-F By: Driver H.B. No. 284 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows: (4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01. (5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01. SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows: (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used: (1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or (3) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section. (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used: (1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; (2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment of the actor; or (3) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B) [The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor]. (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section. (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat. SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C, Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code[, against a person who at the time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant]. SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows: Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses. SECTION 6. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date. (b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, and Section 83.002, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as added by this Act, apply only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose. SECTION 7. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
Are you guys serious??? I don't give a *** whether you can legally kill someone while defending your property. I used that analogy to make a point. You guys twisted into a guy finding someone in the act of committing a property crime and the residents legal right to use deadly force. (we aren't fucking stupid up here you know). That is NO comparison to what I said, so I'll try again. You come home and you find your house has been destroyed by a guy down the street when he was shooting off a home made rocket. You know who the guy is. If you go and just kill him, and try to use the defense you suggested, you are going to go to jail. PERIOD. That is MURDER. NOT DEFENSE. That seems to be the same mistake that the Isrealis make over and over again. When someone with a home made rocket launches it against Isreal, the Isrealis use it as a context to go in and bomb and destroy innocnet civilians lives and property. That is also a crime. You can justify it any way you like, because you are really only trying to make yourself feel better about what you know is inherently wrong, and amounts to a crime against humanity.
Just for the record Kuzi, I am getting my facts from many sources some of which include the UN, CBC, BBC, Aljezeera, on-line etc. I am NOT relying on HAMAS for news, I am using reliable sources, not one of the combatants. That would obviously lead to skewed or outright false information which I would not rely on to make definative statements. But you guys feel free.
Seriously, Aljezeera is 99.9% propaganda... I wouldn't admit to getting actual news from that source about current afairs. They are ALWAYS going to slant to fit the Islamic point of view.
Um, no that would be your CNN, or most of the other main "News" sources in the US who don't even cover stories around the world that they don't find sexy enough for the evening news.
You should try and read something from outside of the US some time Puro. There is a big world going on all around you.
Stretch your views a little there Puro, it won't hurt a bit.
Do you have any fact which show Aljezeera news is biased or flasified? More of your very narrow views? You say lots Puro, how 'bout backing some of it up.
And I am not talking about that laughable attempt to change the subject earlier with the Use Of Deadly Force laws. That was just silly.
Sorry if I offended you Puro, BUT...
When I asked you a question regarding the situation in Gaza you turned it into a discussion of Home owners rights in the State of Texas !!!
Your response had nothing to do with the statement I made and, instead commenting on my statement, you tried to turn it into something else. You still never commented on the actual statements I made in that post.
You mention that I have not backed up what I said? What would you like pages of web links, actual written copies of stories, video's of Gaza? You tell me what evidence would entice you to even consider it. I thought Law Enforcement people should have open minds and would let evidence lead them, instead of looking for supporting evidence and then letting their beliefs in that evidence to lead them? WTF
what do you suggest Israel do when for years on end, hamas lobs rockets into their nation? sit there and take it? thats just dumb.
Aljezeera??! hamas and Aljezeera have many connections. how can you say they are unbiased?
Here are some more ways to back my story up
Dec. 21 2008 Hamas Strikes Israel during TRUCE!!! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/21/world/main4680767.shtml
Another from Dec. 30th http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLU323368
Both before Israel entered Gaza and during a TRUCE where Israel wasn't conducting any attacks...
Would you please show me where I said Aljezeera is not biased? ALL information coming from ANY source is biased, that is an unchangeable truth. We all filter information thru our own beliefs and experiences. I also mentioned the UN... I am sure you will repeat (without actual knowledge) the IDF line about militants firing from those positions first. But just as a side note to that point of view. I would put it to you that while unfortunate if the Hamas militants were doing exactly that, then it behooves the IDF or any other superior army to protect the civilians while routing out these guerillas' fighting tactics. Why do the IDF not do that? Because it would cause for too many casualties on the Isreali side. If you would rather kill innocent civilians then see your soldiers die or get injured in an actual fight with the other side, I would question both your morals and your cowardice
Are you and Puro now speaking as one person? I made those comments to Puro, not you. I did indeed see the referrences you posted. I am sure you are aware of the volumes of evidence which refutes all these comments / statements so it comes down to what you believe. The thing which is not open for discussion is the number of people who are being killed and THAT is what I commented on from the very beggining.
This was just a joke! Please do not take it seriously or personally, just thought this soap opera needed some comic relief
<grabs 6-pack Schlitz>
<sits on couch>
Happy Friday, everybody! Don't mind me, I'm just here for the entertainment. BTW, BBC... I heard that Maddy says you're ugly and stupid.
and a late-breaking PEFTW! woot!