And in response to the evidence, you simply reject the evidence . . .

I’m a nurse, and I often run into patients who believe certain dietary supplements will cure them of incurable cancer. Sometimes I even find people who are as far as they know disease free who believe that certain supplements alone will keep them free of most diseases for their entire lives. To them, it matters not a whit that double blind studies in which the methodology is made available for peer review prove otherwise. In fact, often times such people will point to the contrary studies as “proof” of their own beliefs – “see, it’s the drug companies trying to suppress the truth!”

Is it the same for news information?

Take a look at an alternative news source, http://www.freegaza.org/. I see nothing on that website even mentioning Hamas missile attacks during the course of the cease fire for ANY reason. Does this not indicate to you a problem with obtaining your “facts” from this sort of alternative source alone? Or do you believe that there were no missile attacks at all?

Obviously mistakes will sometimes be made, but if you in general refuse to believe what is reported by numerous reputable news organizations then facts simply cease to exist, replaced only by opinion. And at that point discussion breaks down, becomes impossible. How can you debate a thing when nobody can agree upon facts?

Do you believe that the New York times allowed publication of something that wasn’t true?

Words fail me.

“Israel sealed the border crossings on Wednesday in response to a rocket attack on Tuesday, the first serious breach of the Egyptian-brokered truce. In light of the latest rocket fire, Israeli officials were still deliberating Thursday about when to reopen the crossings.”

So if Israel sealed the border in response to rockets, then clearly the border was open prior to the rocket attack. I’d suggest I’ve met my burden of proof. The evidence is strong that Israel’s actions are a response to it being fed up with the constant rocket and mortar attacks. I have yet to see any credible evidence in support of the other views.

Well, I note that the surrounding Arab states have not attempted to invade Israel for a good number of years now, so I suppose that whatever number Israel possesses is adequate to the task.

“. . . nutzoid nuclear armed crazies that claimed GOD told them they’re the best and everyone else is expendable.”

Oh, you must mean Iran . . . lol, of course you don’t. I do note here that Israel has had nukes for a long time and has not used them. I hope the same will hold true for Iran, as there appears to be no political will to stop them. If I was living in Israel though, I’d be more than a bit nervous.

“What did god tell you last week since only you can hear HIM.”

Actually, I don’t believe in God. That is to say, I have never seen convincing evidence that he/it exists. If he/it does begin to speak with me, I promise I’ll let you know.

I believe I wrote that the Jews learned from the holocaust the necessity of defeating one’s mortal enemies, not that they defeated their mortal enemies. However, you are certainly correct that the allies defeated them – thanks to the overwhelming, disproportionate application of military force.

“The Palestinians are not mortal enemies of the Israelis because they represent no existential or even strategic threat to Israel.”

Really? What would happen if their desired “right of return” was to become a reality? What would Israel then look like full of people who support Hamas, a group that advocates Israel’s destruction? I agree of course that the rockets won’t destroy Israel, but there’s more at issue here than just rockets. And also, Hamas has powerful support from Iran and Syria, you can’t talk about the Palestinians or Hamas as if other far more powerful players don’t exist.

“Hamas began this truce and Israel responded by continuing an economic blockade that has resulted in malnutrition among Gaza’s children . . .”

Well, in an op-ed published in the New York Times (not Fox News Southerndragon, lol), the author writes “Last June, Israel and Hamas agreed to a six-month truce. This unsteady calm was periodically violated by armed factions in Gaza that lobbed rockets into Israel’s border settlements. Israel responded by periodically suspending shipments of supplies into Gaza.” Do you believe that the New York times allowed publication of something that wasn’t true? They seem to be quite picky with their op eds, I recall them recently rejecting one by John McCain.

But okay, don’t like an op-ed? Fine, then an article, again from the New York Times (and not Fox News):

“Rockets from Gaza never stopped entirely during the truce, and Israel never allowed a major renewed flow of goods into Gaza, crippling its economy . . . Israeli and United Nations figures show that while more than 300 rockets were fired into Israel in May, 10 to 20 were fired in July, depending on who was counting and whether mortar rounds were included. In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10. But the goods shipments, while up some 25 to 30 percent and including a mix of more items, never began to approach what Hamas thought it was going to get: a return to the 500 to 600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing, including appliances, construction materials and other goods essential for life beyond mere survival. Instead, the number of trucks increased to around 90 from around 70. Israeli officials acknowledged that transferring previously banned goods had been the plan, but said that there was no specific date for the increase and that it was to happen in steps. But the rockets never fully stopped. “The Palestinians wanted to have one or two rockets a week to keep our people in tension and still tell people inside Gaza, ‘See, we continue to fight and we continue to bring in goods,’” said Shlomo Dror, chief spokesman for Israel’s Defense Ministry. “The moment we fail to react to one rocket we encourage them. Our only choice was to close the crossings when rockets came in.””

(And that, Siun, is my evidence. What about yours?)

I do concede that my comment about most Hamas militants being civilian was assumption, not based on anything I have read, and possibly erroneous. But I don’t think we’re talking about troops who live in barracks here and fight according to the Geneva Conventions. I think they’re hard to find, aren’t they? I can see how/why Israel targets the homes of their commanders.

And finally . . . T-Bear, who tells me, “Do not walk down any dark passage by yourself,” because of the opinions I have posted here. LOL. Well, T-Bear, your threat against me due solely to the content of my opinion . . . imagine how much harder it would be to respond in a civil fashion after so much war, no matter who was to blame? You do well T-Bear, reminding us all how hard these issues really are to deal with in a civil fashion.

I have shown evidence, from a generally acknowledged liberal publication, that Hamas never really stopped shelling Israel during any month of the so-called truce. I can therefore certainly see the Israeli side of this issue.

Bottle rockets against nutzoid nuclear armed crazies that claimed GOD told them they’re the best and everyone else is expendable.
What did god tell you last week since only you can hear HIM.

I think Israel is currently carrying out Bush’s orders. His ‘crusade’. Bush’s intent from before Day One in 2000 was absolute control/mastery of the ME.

I hope I’m wrong, but according to statements by Bush, Rice, Pelosi & Co., it sure looks to me like my view is correct.

Also, the more bombs, planes, tanks, ammo that are used up, the more business for the war profiteers, i.e. Poppy Bush & James Baker III’s Carlyle Group, the biggest profiteers from all these wars.

Noted, will try to refrain in future, folks trying to use faux logic and legalisms to justify crimes against humanity and state terrorism should expect respect – still hard after all these years (to find restraint).