34 youths among 56 dead in Israeli strike

[Debate This]

[/url]AP - Israeli missiles hit several buildings in a southern Lebanon village as people slept Sunday, killing at least 56, most of them children, in the deadliest attack in 19 days of fighting.

 

 

Link To Original Article

[Hamza123]

Quite the measured response I see.. Such bs.

[hugo]

Gotta get 'em when they are young.

 

Possibly the Hezbozos should not be launching rockets from residential areas.

[Hamza123]

Gotta get 'em when they are young.

 

Well, killing young children is in your belief system anyway.

 

23: And he (Elisha) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24: And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

 

I must be taking it out of context, right? That's the only explanation, isn't it? God would never do something so heartless, so malevolent, would he?. Please, then, tell me what is the context? Read the verses before and after the ones above: read verses 23 and 25. How does the context lessen the horror that these verses convey? These lines shed no light on the atrocity-- they change nothing at all.

 

Before you claim it's from the Old Testament and 90% of my word is wrong....

 

Christians always use this excuse to distance themselves from the heartless brutality of the killing of women and children at the hands of Moses, Joshua, David, etc., and yet they are sure quick to whip out Old Testament laws when it is convenient for them to do so. When the time comes for fire and brimstone, they'll quote from Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers and Judges; but when the Freethinker brings up all the genocide and cruel inhumanity contained in those books, well, then they back off and say: "That's the Old Testament. Jesus came to bring the New Covenant."

 

When they wish to heap upon us the 10 Commandments, the Creation Story in Genesis that they want to force into our schools, Noah and his Big Boat, the Wisdom of Solomon (well, he DID have 700 wives and 300 concubines), or ask us to swallow Jonah and his Whale, they will pull out their bibles and open up right to the appropriate Old Testament verse. But when we complain about the cruelty and irrationality of Moses, the infinite cruelty of the Plagues of Egypt and the Pharaoh who was intentionally hardened by God, the butcher Joshua, the criminal David and his murderous raids, Saul the Terrible and the murder of the Amalekites and the hewing of the captured king, they say "Well, that's the Old Testament."

 

 

Wait a minute... we are talking about THE Bible here. We are talking about the one and only God that the Christians worship, aren't we? Are there two bibles, two gods?

 

What these Christians are doing is arguing for something that they claim NOT to believe in... namely "moral relativism": they are saying that morality is not fixed, and changes over time as humanity changes. Go figure...

 

Exactly how do they do this? How do they create two bibles from the one? They say things like: "Jesus said he came to fulfill the law-- the old law passed away." I think what has happened here is that some ministers have intentionally misunderstood the book of Hebrews. It says: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12) The laws changed, not passed away. What changed was the need for a daily animal sacrifice (Hebrews 7:27-28). That is what the New Covenant was-- Jesus was a "human sacrifice" for the forgiveness sin, replacing the Old Covenant of sacrificing burnt offerings-- slaughtered animals-- for sins. (Hebrews 8:13). See also all of Chapter 9 of Hebrews, which describes the Old Covenant of burnt offerings, and Chapter 10 which describes how the New Covenant replaces the Old for the purging of sins. THAT is what the New Covenant is all about-- it means that Christians do not have to put on the butcher's apron and slaughter goats. That's what was changed. If the Christians are right about the "old laws passing away", then we could do away with the 10 Commandments, couldn't we? The "New Covenant" does not release Christians from the killing of homosexuals, or witches, blasphemers and the worshippers of other gods either. The leaders of both the Catholic and Protestant Churches knew this when they murdered hundreds of thousands of people just a few hundred years ago.

 

The next time some Christian tells you to live by the 10 Commandments, tell them: But that is the Old Testament. The 10 Commandments have been replaced by Jesus' new rules to live by:

 

Resist not evil. (Let evil take over the country, the world, I suppose?)

Love thine enemies. (What Christian ever did this? Is this even possible?) (Matthew 5:44)

Pray in secret... do not let men see you pray. (Matthew 6:1-7)

Marrying a divorced woman is adultery (carrying the death penalty). (Matthew 5:32)

Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)

Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)

Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)

Sell everything you have and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)

Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)

Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)

Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)

Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)

Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)

If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)

If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)

If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)

If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)

If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42).

"Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men to do so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:19

 

Are any of these ridiculous sayings wise? Is it possible to extract the least bit of common sense from them? Is this what you would teach to your own children?

 

When Christians throw up the excuse "But that's the Old Testament", I ask: "What do you mean, it's the Old Testament?" Christians say "Well, it was different in those days..." All right then-- how? How was it different, so that cruel wars of extermination and the slaughter of innocent children were perfectly acceptable to Christians? Did people value their lives less in those days? The 50,070 who were killed by God for looking into the Ark of the Covenant, the 70,000 innocent men whom God killed because Joseph chose 3 days of pestilence, the hundreds of innocent townspeople murdered by David during his thieving "raids" in Gath, the tens of thousands of children and babies butchered by Moses, Joshua and Saul... and of course, the 42 little children whom God killed for mocking one of his prophets. Did they value their lives less than we do today?

 

Remember that Jesus said "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I come not to destroy, but to fulfill." Therefore, Jesus came to fulfill Old Testament Law, such as:

 

Ex. 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Lev. 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.

Ex. 31:15 Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Ex. 21:15 He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

Ex. 21:17 He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Ex. 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

Lev. 20:13 If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.

Lev. 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man

[hugo]

They wouldn't be launching any rockets if stupid ass-narrow minded idiots like you weren't calling the shots in Israel.

 

The insults of a child do not effect me. Muslims clearly devalue the lives of their own children. Using them as human shields. Throughout the Muslim world Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other...yet they never bring that up. A dead Muslim child is dead no matter rather a Jew or a Muslim killed it.

 

As long as Israel exists your fellow nutcases will be intentionally killing Jewish children and intentionally putting their own children in harms way.

[wez]

The insults of a child do not effect me. Muslims clearly devalue the lives of their own children. Using them as human shields.

 

 

 

We don't?

 

18 = can't drink or gamble.

 

18 = can die shielding old, drunkin', gambling Americans.

 

Teach, remember, no judging, labeling, and looking down on others for what we are.

[hugo]

We don't?

 

18 = can't drink or gamble.

 

18 = can die shielding old, drunkin', gambling Americans.

 

That's an argument against ageist laws..not against serving in the military.

[wez]

Well, when the day comes when we are the ones being carpet bombed, I'm sure you'll see cases of human sheilding in the manner you describe. It's easy to judge, when you're not in the situation. They can't just make their children disappear.

 

And if our culture spent centuries in a constant state of war in our yard, you can bet 10 year olds would be involved.

[hugo]

You ever ask why our culture differs from Middle Eastern cultures? No, neither the Japanese, Germans our English used their children as shields during WWII. I don't think we would either.

[wez]

You ever ask why our culture differs from Middle Eastern cultures?

 

 

We haven't spent decades in a war zone over control of natural resources?

 

You ever ask why our culture differs from Middle Eastern cultures?

 

 

We're more devious in our ways?

 

You ever ask why our culture differs from Middle Eastern cultures?

 

 

We spent all our time building weapons of intimadation to hide behind?

 

Now, if you guys would unidiot box me, I could combine all those thoughts in one post and you wouldn't have to do it for me anymore.

 

You ever ask why our culture differs from Middle Eastern cultures? No, neither the Japanese, Germans our English used their children as shields during WWII. I don't think we would either.

 

 

Teach, you know that the fighting in Japan was limited to 2 nuclear explosions, and the extent in Germany was at the end of the war. They did not endure over a half century of war in their yard.

 

The place to look for the problem, is in their buddies, the government.

 

And I'm pretty sure plenty of Japanese and German children died.

 

Then, you can claim that they used their kids as sheilds, hate them more, and drop more bombs on them. Kill them with bombs, and blame the people you bomb for dying? Real smart thinking.

 

What else is cool about brainwashing the guilt of your citizens away, is that you can make them the child murderers. Not the actual murderers, which is the source of the bombs that produce the murdering.

 

It doesn't matter which side, it is the same.

 

One is not better than another in aggression.

 

Ghandi through the teachings of Jesus showed us the best way to fight aggression, is with non aggression, then the aggressor is clear. They are in the open for the world to see, and judge.

 

We done here teach? Enough TRUTH for one night?

[hugo]

Teach, you know that the fighting in Japan was limited to 2 nuclear explosions, and the extent in Germany was at the end of the war. They did not endure over a half century of war in their yard.

 

No, I do not know that. Google Doolittle Tokyo raid for a little history lesson. Japan was bombed extensively in WWII; In fact, one of the major reasons that Hiroshima was chosen for the first A-bomb was that it was one of the few major Japanese cities that had not suffered major damage from Allied raids.

 

Ghandi through the teachings of Jesus showed us the best way to fight aggression, is with non aggression, then the aggressor is clear. They are in the open for the world to see, and judge.

 

India was an exception they were up against a power that had been through the enlightenment. By and large, not returning violence with violence is a poor choice.

 

And I'm pretty sure plenty of Japanese and German children died.

 

Then, you can claim that they used their kids as sheilds, hate them more, and drop more bombs on them. Kill them with bombs, and blame the people you bomb for dying? Real smart thinking.

 

No, I don't. Only if their military installations were next to civilian homes. Actually, in WWII no one on either side cared how many civilians from the other side was killed. There was no rational reason to use civilians as human shields.

 

Have you ever heard the saying "The only good Injun is a dead Injun" ... that is the nature of war.

 

The Israelis cannot use their children as shields. Hezbollah can. That tells me who to root for.

[Hamza123]

The Japanese Army was already majorly crippled before the Atom Bomb dropped.

 

 

The Israelis cannot use their children as shields. Hezbollah can. That tells me who to root for.

 

95% of Hezbollah fighters are 35+.

 

They fight Israelis for their children to live.

 

They don't send them off to war.

 

They don't conscript them.

 

Oh and WWII is not like the Israeli v Arab war.

 

America's foreign policy, throughout it's history, has been overwhelmingly involved in the Middle East. Primarly for Oil.

 

If they were there for "democratic reasons"... Why is the USA so reluctant to remove Saudi Arabia's monarchy? Jordans?...

 

You decide to root for Israel because you believe that the European Jewish Immigrants who came there during and after WWII are "Chosen People"... You also root for Israel because of what you see on FOX.

[Hamza123]

Throughout the Muslim world Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other...yet they never bring that up.

 

Actually, it's happening in Iraq.. 99% of that kind of violence...

 

Why?

 

Well, before the USA invaded in 2003, a Shiite could walk into a Sunni coffee shop and nobody cared weather or not they were Shiite or Sunni.

 

This war is breaking them up.

 

Something like 75% of Iraqis voted that they had more freedom when Saddam was in power, and it's clear why.

 

I am not defending Saddam, but the occupying forces have killed 10x more people than Saddam in 10x less the time he was in power.

 

Although Saddam is at fault, it just shows you how the right-wing projection of it's foreign policy is so blindly disguised by idiots like yourself hugo.

[hugo]

WHY DON'T YOU ADMIT THAT THE SUNNI'S DOMINATED POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC LIFE UNDER SADDAM AND THAT IS WHY YOU MISS THE GOOD OLE DAYS OF SUNNI DOMINATION.

 

Damn caps lock.

 

I am not a neo-con. The neo-cons are fools. They actually believe Muslims are capable of governing themselves under democratic rule. It takes tyrants to keep the Sunnis and Shiites from bombing each others mosques and killing each others children. The Iraq war was foolish. It upset the balance of power in the Middle East and strengthened Iran by dong so. Israel is an entangling alliance. They should sink or swim on their own. This does not mean the hezbos do not launch rockets from civilian areas thus intentionally endangering the lives of women and chikdren and Santa. This does not mean that Israelis are not decent people in the midst of barbarians who seek out to kill Israelis regardless of age.

 

I suggest everyone read this

 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,18767608-1702,00.html

 

I think the Sunnis are the only unhappy ones.

[hugo]

 

America's foreign policy, throughout it's history, has been overwhelmingly involved in the Middle East. Primarly for Oil.

 

 

Really, could you please tell me what George Washington's or Abe Lincoln's Middle East policy was. I don't recall from my history education oil being real important before the Twentieth Century.

 

Let's see if he can answer without ignorantly using the words neo-con or Fox news.

[Hamza123]

You don't like Islam or Muslims... It's obvious. Most Muslims are Sunni therefore you Attack the Sunni Muslims. You can't even tell the difference between Shiite or Sunni Muslims. I rather see past their different beliefs. We're still both Muslims. It's people like you who are breaking apart the Muslim world community.

 

Really, could you please tell me what George Washington's or Abe Lincoln's Middle East policy was. I don't recall from my history education oil being real important before the Twentieth Century.

 

Let's see if he can answer without ignorantly using the words neo-con or Fox news.

 

And I am sure if Abe Lincoln, George Washington, or even John Locke were still around they'd give the whole Bush Administration a good slapping.

 

Let's see... Mr. Fox-Con!

 

1947-48: U.S. backs Palestine partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.

 

 

 

1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.1

 

 

 

1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically‑elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter‑century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.

 

 

 

1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.

 

 

 

1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the region.

 

 

 

1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve "stability".

 

 

 

early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.2

 

 

 

1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.3

 

 

 

1967‑: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.

 

 

 

1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. discuss intervening on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.

 

 

 

1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.

 

 

 

1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.

 

 

 

1973‑75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."4

 

 

 

1975: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.5

 

 

 

1978‑79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.6

 

 

 

1979‑88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979.7 Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid.

 

 

 

1980‑88: Iran‑Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly‑aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.

 

 

 

1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and U.S. shoots down two Libyan planes. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing three, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.8

 

 

 

1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon,9 killing some 17 thousand civilians.10 U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self‑defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion.

 

 

 

1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war, including bombardment by USS New Jersey. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks.

 

 

 

1984: U.S.‑backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.11

 

 

 

1987-92: U.S. arms used by Israel to repress first Palestinian Intifada. U.S. vetoes five Security Council resolution condemning Israeli repression.

 

 

 

1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.

 

 

 

1988: U.S. vetoes 3 Security Council resolutions condemning continuing Israeli occupation of and repression in Lebanon.

 

 

 

1990‑91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted.12 To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post‑war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.13

 

 

 

1991‑: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that "the price is worth it."14

 

 

 

1991-: U.S. forces permanently based in Saudi Arabia.

 

 

 

1993‑: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self‑defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.15

 

 

 

1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter.

 

 

 

1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. Evidence for the chemical warfare charge widely disputed.16

 

 

 

2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians.

[Hamza123]

More for you Hugo ??

 

2000 - XXXX

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,630014,00.html

[hugo]

You are clearly a fool. The Guardian is a highly biased source. Try reading something from a mainstream source rather than a liberal rag, jihad boy.

[Hamza123]

You are clearly a fool. The Guardian is a highly biased source. Try reading something from a mainstream source rather than a liberal rag, jihad boy.

 

Try reading it! Never judge a book by it's cover Mr. Moral-Man!

 

Oh and by theway, I quoted the "until 2000" timeline from a different source, NOT the Guardian.

 

Infact, the timeline is used by MANY Israeli professors.

 

If you read the Guardian version you will find it's the least bit biased... Every source is biased fuck.. The Guardian's timeline is not a pro-Arab nor pro-American agenda.

 

I found it for ya bitch but you deny to read it and call it "liberal-jag"... It's not an American nor Arab source so stfu and read bitch.

[Jhony5]

Why does the Muslim mind run in reverse? Their culture creates a society that is disperportionately stuck in the middle ages. Lebonese people support Hezbolah, a well known terrorist organization, through polical means. Iran suports Hezbolah through financial means. Through continuos terror attacks and provacation, Hezbolah has brought the war on terror to Lebonon.

 

It's up to the people of Lebonon to reject the foul parasite, Hezbolah, that has somehow garnished more power then its host. I listen to the Governing officials of Lebonon and it confuses me utterly. They say " Please someone save us from the evil Jews". Then when asked about the criminals whom provocated Isreal, they say "Hezbolah has to much military power for us to bring them down". What the fuck is going on there? They don't dare to denounce the terrorist. Why? Because they are Muslim? Because Hezbolah builds schools and constructs social programs to educate the terrorist of tomorrow?

 

If Muslims would take their fight to the battlefield, as opposed to drawing the frontline back into residential areas, then I bet we would see less children dying. Its about tactic. Launch missles at the enemy from apartment rooftops = no more apartment. The muslim culture is a funny thing. Instead of rejecting Hezbolah, they embrace them tighter with each dead child.

 

Personaly I like Isreals idea of "peace talks". Or should I say "piece talks". Give in or you can watch your whole family, your whole country, get blown into pieces.

[hugo]

Our history did not start in the 20th Century, jihad boy.

[Jhony5]

Our history did not start in the 20th Century, jihad boy.

 

Why do all Muslims stand so united in an effort to divide the world? It's becoming more and more difficult to differenciate a Muslim from a terrorist. If you lived in the house next to me, and fired rockets at me everyday, eventualy I would fire my own rocket. If it killed one of your children doing so, i'd say to you, "don't fire any more rockets or i'll kill the rest of them, and your fucking dog". Isreal vs. Hezbolah, same thing, bigger scale.

[Hamza123]

Our history did not start in the 20th Century, jihad boy.

 

Read the timeline bitch, don't skip it... An oppertunity came up to you for a debate and you disregard it... Just read it bitch.

 

Jhonny, you're soooo right, I just wanna' go out there and shoot up every member of parliament... I wanna' tear apart civilization simply because I pray to Allah five times a day and don't eat pig..

 

Oh and Jhonny, get your facts straight, Hezbollah took two soldiers from Israel, in retaliation to the hundreds of Lebanese prisoners in Israel, a lot of which are aged 14, 15, and 16. Oh and Israel first fired any kind of bomb into Lebanon, Hezbollah retaliated with rockets.

[hugo]

 

America's foreign policy, throughout it's history, has been overwhelmingly involved in the Middle East. Primarly for Oil.

 

 

Read your own argument, jihad boy. Throughout the first 125+ years of our history the US had little demand for oil. Jihad boy is incapable of debating. Thinks posting irrelevant links is debate. He needs to read other sources besides Al Jazeera and the Guardian.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Read the timeline bitch, don't skip it... An oppertunity came up to you for a debate and you disregard it... Just read it bitch.

 

Jhonny, you're soooo right, I just wanna' go out there and shoot up every member of parliament... I wanna' tear apart civilization simply because I pray to Allah five times a day and don't eat pig..

 

Oh and Jhonny, get your facts straight, Hezbollah took two soldiers from Israel, in retaliation to the hundreds of Lebanese prisoners in Israel, a lot of which are aged 14, 15, and 16. Oh and Israel first fired any kind of bomb into Lebanon, Hezbollah retaliated with rockets.

This statement only proves Irsrael is doing the right thing... the age of the terrorists in Israeli jails is immaterial.