US recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
The words "lifting a hand in return" does NOT mean "engage in violence".
Idiom dictionary.

This is the second time in this conversation you have had a problem with the meaning of vocabulary or idiom. I do not mind if you use words in a way which is "incorrect" according to the dictionary but if you are not even going to make an effort to understand common usage, and your "misunderstandings" occur at rhetorically convenient points in a discussion, and even "misunderstand" when I pre-emptively provide the correct interpretation for you, then I can only conclude you are discussing in bad faith. Describing people who were using weapons to be "unarmed" was probably a conscious lie in hindsight, and I was incorrect to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I do not think further conversation will be beneficial.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,259
T'Republic of Yorkshire
Enough, both of you. Once you start quibbling over the definition of a word, all you're doing is trying to score a debating point, not participating in the argu,emt/

If it bothers you so much, just make your arguments without using the word in question.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,749
USA
Yes rocks etc can be regarded as WEAPONS. Your fist can be used as a WEAPON. But I was specifically talking about the people killed having no ARMS.

I used this dictionary definition.

armed
/ɑːmd/
adjective
adjective: armed
equipped with or carrying a firearm or firearms.
"heavily armed troops"




You want to believe that a burning tyre is a weapon, if it was rolled. What if it was rolled against a fence which stopped it rolling? Do you actually have any evidence that they were rolled.

The fact remains that scores (over 100) of people, without weapons of any description, were killed by Israeli fire.


That's just an opinion without evidence.


What is the reason? Could it be that Israel, is an illegall military occupier which has, since 2006, committed more violations of international law than anyone else?


Please state, and show, where the UN Human Rights Council demanded that Israel must deal with Palestinian violence without lifting a hand.
Are you seriously attempting to claim that nobody was armed before the invention and availability of firearms? That this guy wasn't armed?

 

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,378
Are you seriously attempting to claim that nobody was armed before the invention and availability of firearms? That this guy wasn't armed?

Good point, but I was only using the definition when I put "define armed" in Google.

I'm not going to hang my hat on that definition. The relevant fact is that hundreds of people without any arms at all were shot by trained soldiers wtih modern firearms, tanks etc.

Also, as I pointed out, I can accept that the idiom "raise a hand at" is used in the sense of "use violence against", but the UN agency never demanded that Israel must never use violence against hostile people, which is what Fox has asserted.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,749
USA
I'm not going to hang my hat on that definition. The relevant fact is that hundreds of people without any arms without any firearms at all were shot by trained soldiers wtih modern firearms, tanks etc.
Adjusted your quote for accuracy.

Because by your definition, the 7/7 London suicide bomber, the 2004 Madrid train bombings were all done by unarmed individuals. Carrying large amounts of explosives.
 

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,378
Adjusted your quote for accuracy.

Because by your definition, the 7/7 London suicide bomber, the 2004 Madrid train bombings were all done by unarmed individuals. Carrying large amounts of explosives.
As I said, it's not my definition, I got it from google. And as I further said, I am not relying on that definition. I stand by my statement "The relevant fact is that hundreds of people without any arms at all were shot by trained soldiers wtih modern firearms, tanks etc." because I am referring to the hundreds that did not have any weapons at all (they weren't throwing stones or burning tyres or throwing molotov cocktails) who nevertheless got shot.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,749
USA
As I said, it's not my definition, I got it from google. And as I further said, I am not relying on that definition. I stand by my statement "The relevant fact is that hundreds of people without any arms at all were shot by trained soldiers wtih modern firearms, tanks etc." because I am referring to the hundreds that did not have any weapons at all (they weren't throwing stones or burning tyres or throwing molotov cocktails) who nevertheless got shot.
So nobody had any weapons? All those molotov cocktails and bombs thrown, caught on video, were magic done by rogue Hogwart students...
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,980
SoCal
The election of Hamas to the government of the Gaza Strip is in response to Israel trying to cow the population into submission. That has never worked. In response to oppression, a hardline government becomes more attractive, and then attitudes amongst the Israelis hardens in response. It's a vicious cycle.
Yes--though there is also the very real possibility that the Palestinian Authority's (Fatah's) corruption played a significant role in Hamas's 2006 win.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,521
Yes--though there is also the very real possibility that the Palestinian Authority's (Fatah's) corruption played a significant role in Hamas's 2006 win.
Corruption and collaboration. The PA is beholden to the Israelis in many ways, and the Israelis, the whole PA/Peace process requires the PA to work with Israelis.
When the Israelis so pointedly do not come even close to halfway, the PA and Fatah can be oh so easily painted as collaborators, and not without substance.
The Peace process *IS* about collaboration. But the Israeli side had certainly been without any will or genuine commitment under Netanyahu.
The Israeli can be said with some fair degree of truth to be just using the peace process for cover will carrying out creeping annexation and expansion.

The PA supports "the struggle" against Israel and they are terrorist. They don't they are collaborators.

The PA badly needed someting from teh Israelis to show teh benefiots of working iwth the Isrealis, some progress, some hope. Well they just dinn't get enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,980
SoCal
Corruption and collaboration. The PA is beholden to the Israelis in many ways, and the Israelis, the whole PA/Peace process requires the PA to work with Israelis.
When the Israelis so pointedly do not come even close to halfway, the PA and Fatah can be oh so easily painted as collaborators, and not without substance.
The Peace process *IS* about collaboration. But the Israeli side had certainly been without any will or genuine commitment under Netanyahu.
The Israeli can be said with some fair degree of truth to be just using the peace process for cover will carrying out creeping annexation and expansion.

The PA supports "the struggle" against Israel and they are terrorist. They don't they are collaborators.

The PA badly needed someting from teh Israelis to show teh benefiots of working iwth the Isrealis, some progress, some hope. Well they just dinn't get enough.
Hamas was elected before Netanyahu's recent reign of power, though. 2006 is three years before 2009.