Skip to comments.
Canada: Professor who said Israelis over 18 are legitimate targets for terror will not be punished
Maariv News Ticker ^
| 11/17/2004
| AP
Posted on 11/17/2004 4:57:54 PM PST by yonif
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
To: yonif
doesn't that violate canadian speech laws?
41
posted on
11/17/2004 7:42:10 PM PST
by
ken21
(against the democrat plantation.)
To: yonif
So perhaps someone should put a bullet through this guy. After all, he is over 18 and has picked a side in a war. Would they be punished?
Why?
42
posted on
11/17/2004 9:08:56 PM PST
by
American in Israel
(A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
To: yonif
What about people who moved to Israel when they were old? They are not part of the army.
To: XBob
"Which, using the logic of mathmatics, roughly translated means, that any Muslim over 18, anywhere, is also elligible for attack, including him."It seems that by that logic all Muslims of any age are eligible for attack, since their religion teaches that all Muslims are bound together by the hateful heresy they call Islam.
To: yonif
Did you expect him to be?
45
posted on
11/17/2004 9:21:55 PM PST
by
sport
To: Diogenesis
Canada supports terrorism. Clear as a bell. They sure support muslim terrorism.
Muslim terrorists at the universities operate with impunity in particular. They have their middle finger in the air and know the "hate crimes" laws better than the police.
As an identifiable by observation 'minority' they are automatically victims, regardless of facts.
Add in the ideologically sympathetic fascist government and courts and the picture is complete.
al-Qanada is a muslim terrorist breeding ground.
46
posted on
11/17/2004 11:29:36 PM PST
by
sarah_f
(Know Islam, Know Terror.)
To: American in Israel
"So perhaps someone should put a bullet through this guy"
We can only hope so, but the price of a bullet in socialist Canada might just be too much money to waste on such a vile piece of anti-Semetic filth. Canada is so lost they couldn't find their way back to sanity with a metal detector and an On-Star system.
47
posted on
11/17/2004 11:35:53 PM PST
by
RockAgainsttheLeft04
("America...F**K YEAH !" -Team America: World Police)
To: yonif
48
posted on
11/18/2004 9:39:05 AM PST
by
MeekOneGOP
(There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
To: ZellsBells
It isn't hard to tell which way the wind is blowing in Canada, is it?Isn't that spelled "Qanada" now?
49
posted on
11/18/2004 9:45:23 AM PST
by
badbass
To: yonif; EdReform
50
posted on
11/18/2004 9:51:59 AM PST
by
MeekOneGOP
(There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
To: yonif
51
posted on
11/18/2004 10:04:09 AM PST
by
EdReform
(Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
To: MeekOneGOP
52
posted on
11/18/2004 10:04:35 AM PST
by
EdReform
(Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
To: yonif
El-Masry said during a TV program that every Israeli over the age of 18 is a legitimate target for terror. Does that make him a legitimate target for the Mossad?
53
posted on
11/18/2004 10:07:26 AM PST
by
Polybius
To: KC_for_Freedom
Israel took this position when civilians were being kidnapped and held hostage. They took the position not to negotiate with hostages and instead said they would treat any kidnapped person as though they were a member of the military. (And in fact all citizens do take military training and up to some age can be recalled, so this is not at issue.)
I have no reason to believe this is true. You think Israel considers an 80 year old woman or an 8 year old boy a member of the Military? The U.S. also does not (officially) negotiate for the release of hostages but we don't feel it necessary to classify them as combatants to do so.
As far as killing them being moral, how do you feel about Israel killing all their enemies, do you care if they are armed? Or may they be killed on the street?
I am fine with Israel killing their enemies - armed, unarmed, in the street or in their homes. It is the moral thing to do. Of course, I classify their enemies as radical, Islamic terrorists not freedom fighters or oppressed Palestinians as they do in the NYT and on CNN. Fact is, Israel kills very, very few innocents.
I believe that in war, both sides are moral in attacking and killing the uniformed enemy. In a very real sense, those armed members of the IDF are moral targets. I would say killing adult Israelis at a bar mitzfa, restaurant, or on a bus is immoral, regardless of their military status, they are not uniformed and armed, and are not "on duty".
Check your premise. Israel is in no way at war. They are defending their sovereign country against radical Islamic terrorists. There is no moral equivalence between an IDF soldier and a suicide bomber.
54
posted on
11/18/2004 11:27:28 AM PST
by
keat
To: keat
Ya know, you got everything I posted wrong. I agree with you wholeheartedly but you seem to want to change the terminology of everything I wrote. I don't see any benefit in this. I repeat, Israel has issued a position that everyone is in the military. (It was not meant to be taken to the extreme, everyone is not receiving military pay for example.) I was writing in favor of Israel killing all their enemies. Had I been in charge, we would have unleashed the dogs of war long ago. And as for Israel being in a state of war, so is the United States, and don't mince words that refer to documents issued by the legislature and such. We are engaged. That is enough to be in a state of war. (You are right that it is not a war started by Israel or the US, but we are free to use the offensive and do not need to wait any longer for the enemy to open fire first.)
I also believe that the level of morality in this war has been set very low by the use of suicide bombers and terrorism. Israel and the United States are (as far as I am concerned) released from accepted war conventions when fighting this particular enemy.
55
posted on
11/18/2004 11:46:33 AM PST
by
KC_for_Freedom
(Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
To: KC_for_Freedom
Dang, and I thought we were in for a good brawl. Thanks for the post and God Bless America.
56
posted on
11/18/2004 1:04:08 PM PST
by
keat
To: intolerancewillNOTbetolerated
44 - "Which, using the logic of mathmatics, roughly translated means, that any Muslim over 18, anywhere, is also elligible for attack, including him."
It seems that by that logic all Muslims of any age are eligible for attack, since their religion teaches that all Muslims are bound together by the hateful heresy they call Islam."
I don't disagree, however, he limited the 'set' to people over 18, so I did likewise.
However, considering they (the muslims) also kill women and children of non-muslims indiscriminately, they should be likewise targeted.
57
posted on
11/18/2004 7:57:19 PM PST
by
XBob
(Free-traitors steal our jobs for their profit.)
To: yonif
Your link to canoe does not work.
58
posted on
11/18/2004 7:59:01 PM PST
by
O.C. - Old Cracker
(When the cracker gets old, you wind up with Old Cracker. - O.C.)
To: O.C. - Old Cracker
59
posted on
11/18/2004 8:47:03 PM PST
by
yonif
("So perish all Thine enemies, O the Lord" - Judges 5:31)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson