Islamic Jihad claims Negohot shooting attack that killed two

[drdon326]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/343780.html

The Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for
Friday's shooting attack in the West Bank
settlement of Negohot, in which two Israelis,
including a baby girl, were killed and two others
lightly wounded, Israel Radio reported Sunday.

Palestinian sources said the gunman was 22-year-old Mahmoud
Hamedan from the village of Durrah, south of the West Bank
city of Hebron.

Hamedan was released from an Israeli prison two months ago,
after serving a 14 month sentence.


"To our regret, we have two killed and two more
slightly wounded," said Dror Richter, spokesman
for Magen David Adom.

The gunman infiltrated the isolated settlement
Friday, at around 9:30 P.M., from the
northwest, through an area not enclosed by a
fence.

Armed with an M-16 assault rifle, he knocked on
the door of one of the homes on the edge of the
settlement. A 30-year-old man who was visiting
at the house opened the door and was critically
wounded by the gunman. He died a short time
later.

......................................................

good ol' ISLAMIC JIHAD-O-MURDERERS

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackie97]

3. I'm going to say it to you once again.

There is a difference between those who:

1) Hate Israeli policy

and

2) Those who hate Israeli policy and will kill Zionists and Jews because of it.

I do like reading some of your posts in other forums, but I do wish that you would do one of two things:

1) Actually stay off of this board if you don't want to argue about it.

or

2) Make a rational argument to try to prove the anti-semitism of some who are pro-Palestinians (You'll never prove that they're all anti-semitic because they're just not). The idea that all pro-Palestinians are bad because one killed a family and because some beheaded Daniel Pearl DOESN'T FLY. What if we went into detail about some of the things that Sharon did in Lebannon and used it to claim that all pro-Israelis hate Arabs? That wouldn't make sense, would it? You need to make a rational argument.

[MariMayans]

5. I think you miss the point

There isn't quite enough real persecution out there to wallow in so this forum is the place to come bathe in the cult of the oppressed with a problematic, colonial adventure being the anthropomorphised Jew being picked on.

[drdon326]

6. hmmmm.....

"to come bathe in the cult of the oppressed with a problematic, colonial adventure being the anthropomorphised Jew being picked on."

nice SAT word....

nice post on a thread about Jihadofascist murder , you are able
to turn it around about jews being picked on.

Let me guess.....thats Anti-zionist......right??

[MariMayans]

8. I'm anti-state

and more so regarding one based on a notion of a state being an organic entity composed of race or religion. As an American such a concept should be anathema to everything we try to pretend to be.

[drdon326]

10. Really??

so youre against...

saudi arabia
kuwait
jordan
yemen

and a palestinian state??

[MariMayans]

13. frankly, yes

I support the idea of a Palestinian state as a solution to the refugee problem because high ideals don't really mean much when you are stuck in a refugee camp but I don't like the idea that much.

Saudi Arabia can jump straight up my ass along with Jordan.

[drdon326]

24. wow...

"Saudi Arabia can jump straight up my ass along with Jordan."

if i said that i'd be banned....

assume i'm going to quote you on that.

[Gimel]

70. "everything we try to pretend to be"

Since you admit that you have not obtained that goal after 230 years as a nation (the USA, that is that you are speaking for), and yet deny that Israel should be a state because it cannot reach your proposed ideals, sitting as it does among the many Arab nations, that it not even have a national identity, a place it calls home, as most people around the world do?

Why do you propose that Israel should be non-cultural? If the Palestinians were to succeed in repopulating the land of Israel, would they create a nation without a cultural bias, one open to all peoples from around the world, regardless of religion or nationality? Would they even recognize the rights of a small Jewish enclave, or would they break up the Jews entirely, imposing a scheme of Jew watching, least they dare to redefine themselves as a nation?

[MariMayans]

86. *shrug*

I do what I can.

I don't think even the South Africans ever had the cajones to try and say "We are surrounded by niggers!".

[Fight_n_back]

85. So you are against a Palestinian State

why are you here then?

[Cassandra]

35. On what level do you think...

Jews are not human (anthropomorphised Jew)?

[The Magistrate]

38. My Guess, Ma'am

Is that the meaning intended by Ms. Mayans was that "problematic colonial adventure" is anthropomorphised into Jew when Israel is criticized.

[Aidoneus]

39. I took it as..

something thought of in the whitewashed light of how one wants to think of it, as something that just confirms whatever ones ideals are, rather than how it is.. :shrug:

[Cassandra]

40. That's a charitable interpretation, Sir

for a very poorly phrased comment.

[Darranar]

41. I think The Magistrate is right...

and even if I didn't, we should give the benefit of the doubt.

[MariMayans]

43. I said exactly what I meant

it's not my turn of phrase that generated your paranoid response. It's motivated by the same worldview I was commenting on.

[Lithos]

44. Could you rephrase this again?

I don't quite follow your meaning and your intent, especially this portion:

problematic, colonial adventure being the anthropomorphised (sic) Jew being picked on.

Noting that anthropomorphization is the attribution of human elements to the non-human.

L-

[Aidoneus]

45. I think he's talking about an idea

the whole colonial adventure part is morphed into "the Jew being picked on" because it's comforting to a held idea (since spelled out exactly by MariMayans to mean victimism) to ignore or alter the unsavory bits that deviate from a storyline of a besieged mentality/"just defending ourselves from 'terrorists'". Incidentally, the latter are then referred to routinely and directly as subhuman/animals by many pro-Israel posters here without the same inquisition this is getting now.

or maybe I am just anthropomorphisizing it so I could throw in that last sentence as a barb towards the reactions. :shrug:

[Lithos]

49. Thanks

I am reading it as the same but had some doubt.

L-

[MariMayans]

46. Israel stands as a surrogate Jew

and the intent in coming down here and noticing that people aren't happy with the way they created a Wild East of gun wielding settlers and hounded natives is to come see this enity as a Jew get picked on to satisfy a need to confirm victimhood status.

[Cassandra]

47. It's too bad...

that everyone else is making more sense than you are. In that last post you have exceeded your blather quotient for the day.

[MariMayans]

48. You are pretending not to understand

I think you probably know exactly what I mean and I didn't mean to be flattering but at least address my hypothesis (I'll spell it out one more time just in case): American Jews who "support" Israel don't really give a piss at all about Israel. What does it mean to be a zionist and not move? What they care about in the entire debate is a chance to cling to a victim status that becomes more and more theoretical every year and by viewing Israel as an innocent victim of anti-semitic slurs this becomes a more believable notion.

[Cassandra]

53. When you dump a poorly constructed sentence on us..

I think it appropriate that you be asked to explain yourself. I had a possible sense of it, but was wondering if you meant something particularly nasty. I'm still wondering.

"American Jews who "support" Israel don't really give a piss at all about Israel. What does it mean to be a zionist and not move?"
It means I'm fine here for now, because Israel is there, reminding people that Jews can fight rather than just kneel next to a pit so they can be shot in the head, while the rest of the world averts its eyes.
As much as you would like to deny it, there are numbers of people in this country who would like to kill me because I'm a Jew. That's hardly theoretical. If Israel could somehow be the most perfect country on Earth it would still be the target of anti-Semitic slurs. Whether Israel would then consider itself a victim is a different question. Would you post this sort of question to African-Americans? Why do you get to say what I should and should not take personally?

[MariMayans]

54. there were pan-africanists

Who felt that criticizing Mobuto was driven out of racist sentiment. I really don't give a damn if it is or it isn't. Mobuto was shitty and Israel's policies towards the Arabs inside the green line and especially in the West Bank and Gaza is shitty.

If anything I was trying to be nice at first and not slap people directly in the face with something I largely believe to be true.

When was the last time anyone killed a Jew for being Jewish in the United States? The last time I can remember was the sixties. You can believe all you want that you live in a hotbed of anti-semitism but it's just not true. No one runs on a platform of blatent anti-semitism. Even David Duke's troglodyte constituancy (which lost) made apologies for his anti-semitic "past" so apparently even retardville can't manage to work up enough Judenhas to make for a successful campaign.

[bemildred]

56. There was fellow here in LA in the 90s that shot

up a Jewish day care center, also killed a filipino postal worker.
It does happen. I think the USA is a rather racist and bigoted
place, but I don't consider anti-semitism to be the most popular
form of that, and it's far less prevalent and virulent than it
was when I was a young man, but it does occur. Being a large, white
male of protestant origin and northern European appearance is still
the way to go if you want to avoid being annoyed.

Assertions of bias are a popular way of avoiding dealing with
substantive complaints about policy, almost anywhere you go.

[MariMayans]

57. wasn't he on meds?

If I remember right he was a paranoid schizophrenic. I'm not sure that counts..

[bemildred]

58. He was certainly out there, I don't remember the details

now, just his name was Buford or Burford and he was a piece
of work.

[MariMayans]

59. Buford O'Neal Furrow

Yeah, he was a piece of work. In tin-foil hat scenarios he was a victim of mind control but myself I use Ocham's Razor and reduce it to he was loopy-doopy-kooky (in clinical terms).

If you want to call that a hate crime you would have to simultaneously believe that the American schizophrenic who tried to burn down Al-Aqsa was engaging in a hate crime and while some might agree with that I would find it spurious.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Small correction...

I think the guy who tried to burn down Al-Aqsa was Australian, not American...

Violet...

[bemildred]

62. Understood.

I think the line between nuts and just bigoted is fuzzy.
Or to put it another way, bigoted is, at best, a mild form
of nuts. But Buford was not running on all cylinders, that
is true.

[MariMayans]

64. I think you can be a sane racist

You would be wrong but I don't think it's mental illness.

Buford had been institutionalized over suicide attempts and was diagnosed with a form of schizophrenia. He exhibited things like word salad that clearly indicated a malfuctioning brain.

I think you are correct overall but I'm just saying that in this case his malformed ideas have a more organic cause than say William Pierce who I would categorize as quite sane.

[bemildred]

65. Yes. I expect that is correct.

He was clearly not living in the same world most of us share
any longer. Some of the things he did didn't make sense even
in bigot terms. But some of the White Supremacist fellows make
me feel much the same way, I just wonder when they are going to
crash and burn, and how many they will take with them. Some
of them have a fondness for amphetamines too.

[bemildred]

66. For instance ...

I suppose most would consider Hitler "sane",
or most of the many slave owners we used to have here at home,
or the many people who used to live in colonies of various
western powers, or the Japanese in WWII, or those folks down
in Rwanda-Burundi, etc.

[MariMayans]

67. all quite sane..

It's interesting you bring up the Japanese, I was thinking about them earlier watching some tortured justification of our Iraq invasion. The Japanese press of the day trumpeted their invasion of Manchuria as an excersise to battle "Chinese bandits" and they even managed to find a Chinese nationalist who had more real credentials than anyone we managed to dreg up in Vietnam or Iraq to back up.

The Italians felt they were in a war with Africa to end slavery. Who could oppose that :shrug:

[bemildred]

78. It's a very long list.

I just tried to pick a few telling entries.

Generally speaking one is always trying to promote
universal brotherhood, liberate the peons, or something
unquestionably good. As I said elsewhere, people like
to maintain their own good opinion, and reasons will be
found, regardless of what might actually be occurring.
The general thesis is always along the lines of "once we
remove these few obstructions/obstructors, everything will
be nearly perfect." One can see this logic at work now
in the IDF's delusional attempts to suppress the terrorism
by whacking the "leadership" of the various groups. I
don't object to that all that much, to the extent they have
taken up the sword of random violence, but in the absence of
changes in the treatment of the Palestinian population as a
whole, it will change nothing, at best one buys a bit of time.

I brought up the Japanese because they did such a good
job of depopulating the place. For sheer numbers killed
I don't think there is a match for it, except perhaps for
some of Mr. Stalin's internal adjustments. Mr. Magistrate
posted a rather long and interesting piece on the conflict
a while back.

[Gimel]

80. Sane or not

Hitler had to be stopped (he has been diagnosed post-mortum ans insane). All the same, he concocted a diabolical plan, wrote it down and gained the political power to implement it. Sane or not, he master-minded a lot of death, torture and destruction, in proportions that signify that he could have been an icon of evil itself.

Evil does have to be stopped. It will run it's course otherwise, and that leads to more death and destruction and torture of innocent lives.

Many people seem to have a problem determining what that icon consists of. Failing to prevent a crime may be one they share with Sharon.

[bemildred]

81. Right, thanks for clearing that up.

[Violet_Crumble]

63. So true...

Assertions of bias are a popular way of avoiding dealing with
substantive complaints about policy, almost anywhere you go.

You were spot on with that comment, bemildred...

Violet...

[Cassandra]

60. Alan Berg?

Was that his name; the radio talk-show host. For any others, I guess I'll have to check the list at SPLC.
I guess you should be careful how you throw the word anthropomorphic around since you use it carelessly.

[MariMayans]

68. Berg had a political ideology

That I think he was a good person and in general was right about things is immaterial. He wasn't targeted by that filth because he was Jewish exactly, he was targeted because he held a political ideology.

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. You rationalize anti-semitism and murder

I imagine by your definition, Jews in Israel are killed because...?

[Aidoneus]

73. where was that?

I must've missed it.. :shrug:

Aside from the slimy connotation suggesting sympathising or justifying (which sure as fuck did not apply here), rationalize probably isn't a term you'd want to use if that was meant to be an insulting sort of remark; it implies there was irrationally explained reasons made clearer or more exactly defined--something I'd think of as a positive thing, personally, but to each his own..

[GabysPoppy]

72. Yankel Rosenbaum - n/t

[Cassandra]

74. How could I have forgotten?

And that murder was nearby, as was that of the rabbinical student shot in the yeshiva van crossing one of the bridges in NYC, by someone who said he was targeting Jews (sorry I can't remember his name). I guess by Mari's standards, I should consider myself perfectly safe because I don't look as Jewish (clothing-wise) as they did.

[GabysPoppy]

75. You may also have not remembered

That same night an Italian gentlement was also assaulted because he "looked" Jewish.

[MariMayans]

83. That's way too complicated to nail down

unless you want to open a can of worms about how the Lubavitcher ambulance reacted I would steer far away from throwing accusations of hate crimes around.

[Proudlib]

89. July 2002

"When was the last time anyone killed a Jew for being Jewish in the United States? The last time I can remember was the sixties."

I guess you have a very poor memory. In July of 2002 an El Al ticket agent was murdered in cold blood at LAX by an Egyptian born gunman who deliberatly targeted the El Al counter.

[bemildred]

90. Good catch, Sir.

I remember it well.

[Lithos]

51. I believe I understood the last explanation better than the first

So for me it did make more sense.

L-

[Lithos]

50. Thank you for the expansion

(n/t)

L-

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

14. There Has Been A Lot Of Vitriol Lately, My Friend

Not having seen the comments that were removed, it is not possible for me to comment on them.

But it is always possible to express a point plainly and civilly.

These murders were a clear-cut crime, and those who contrived them are criminals beyond dispute. Indeed, such killers are the leading enemies of the people of Arab Palestine, for they do more to ensure their continued suffering than any reactionary in the Israeli polity. These latter would have little power, if not for groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. True friends of Arab Palestine, and the legitimate aspirations of its people, ought not to spare themselves in condemnation of these killings, and the many like them.

[MariMayans]

15. blanket denunciation of Palestinian advocates

as anti-semities. Clearly counter to the rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MariMayans]

19. *shrug*

My eyes were rolling too much when I read it to even remember clearly what the point was (if there was one) but that's what it sounded like to me.

[drdon326]

21. Oh brother.....

so you dont remember it......but it was against the
rules.

[MariMayans]

22. ...

:shrug:

[drdon326]

23. Exactly.

thank you for making my point.

[MariMayans]

27. reconstruct it then

seems the easiest solution.

[drdon326]

28. I wish i could.....

cherryperry.....repost it.

[Jackie97]

31. I'll try to reconstruct it.

Cherryperry talked about Daniel Pearl. Then, she said that people "here" (Here has to mean on DU, wouldn't it) will claim not to be anti-semite. It was one of those ideas of "Bullshit, yes you are".

The other person said that Israel would retaliate for this, and that the "terror apologists" on here would criticize Israel.

There are DIRECT RULES against labeling pro-Palestinians as anti-semites or as "terror apolgogists". There's also a rule saying to go to the moderator if one thinks that one is an anti-semite or has said anti-semitic comments. The rules were broken, so they got deleted. Pro-Palestinians have found their posts being deleted for breaking the rules too, so don't try to pretend that you're being persecuted.

There are rules to protect people from both sides of the issue. Please read them folks, and actually keep them. Report what you think is being anti-semitic/anti-Arab, whatever. Do not, however, start breaking rules and screaming out persecution.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

33. As Are, My Friend

Charges of being pro-Likud and the like leveled at persons here who advocate for Israel. This debate among us here can be conducted without either side resorting to such ploys.

[Darranar]

34. Completely agreed...

such accusations distract from legitimate debate and fail to address anything of importance.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aidoneus]

18. ...

Not having seen the comments that were removed, it is not possible for me to comment on them.

[The Magistrate]

20. No, Sir

My morning has been spent up in Breaking News in comment supporting Gen. Clark, and rejoicing in the difficulties befalling Novak over his exposure of an intelligence operative in furtherance of the designs of the criminals of the '00 Coup in deceiving the people on the subject of Iraqi nuclear capabilities. Both messages were removed before my arrival here.

As a general point though, my friend, over the last couple of days there has been a lot of rather broad criticism that might be seen as directed towards the people of Arab Palestine as a whole, rather than against particular persons within that society. That needs to be watched, just as its mirror does.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackie97]

4. In case you haven't been reading.....

Plenty of pro-Palestinians here condemned stuff like killing children and so forth. It's not that the pro-Palestinians here don't condemn acts from the Palestinian terrorists. It's that you want us to keep our mouths shut when the IDF does stuff that is just as bad.

[Cassandra]

36. Just as bad...

as blowing up an ice cream parlor full of children or a disco? And when have any of you EVER kept your mouths shut about the IDF. Even when it turns out that initial reports were greatly exaggerated.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Read Jackie's post again...

She responded to a post by pointing out that pro-Palestinian posters do indeed condemn the killing of children etc. And what she said was that whoever the poster was that she was responding to wanted us to keep our mouths shut when the IDF does stuff that's just as bad. How did you read that as saying that it was about anyone choosing themselves to keep their mouths shut about anything?

When it comes to the killing of children, every killing is just as bad as the others. I refuse to value one group of children more highly than others because of their nationality or ethnic group. There is no justification for the death of any child in this conflict. I take it you disagree?


Violet...

[Cassandra]

42. What she said was...

"stuff like killing children and so forth." Well, that certainly sounds sympathetic, NOT.

"When it comes to the killing of children, every killing is just as bad as the others."

According to the rules of war, you're wrong.

"I refuse to value one group of children more highly than others because of their nationality or ethnic group."

No one is saying anything about ethnicity or nationality but you. We are talking about the manner of death; whether they are primary targets or accidental ones. When children are primary targets, it's a war crime. When they are accidental targets, it's a tragedy.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Yr trying to twist what she said...

"stuff like killing children and so forth." Well, that certainly sounds sympathetic, NOT.

You obviously haven't been reading her posts if you want to try taking a portion of Jackie's sentence which was specifically pointing out that people here have condemned the killing of children and make an accusation of not being sympathetic. How on earth you come to the conclusion that she's not sympathetic about their deaths is a mystery to me...

According to the rules of war, you're wrong.

I wasn't talking about rules of war. I was talking about my own opinion and what I hope is the opinion of most people who post here...

No one is saying anything about ethnicity or nationality but you. We are talking about the manner of death; whether they are primary targets or accidental ones. When children are primary targets, it's a war crime. When they are accidental targets, it's a tragedy.

Folk who do it don't tend to put a disclaimer in their posts announcing 'Hey! I value the lives of children based on their nationality or ethnicity!', but that doesn't mean it's not done. The problem seems to be that some people try to justify the killing of children based on whether or not they *think* they were a primary target or an accidental one. In the case of the child mentioned in the article, they weren't aimed at and there's a lot of similarities between the way they and the three year old Palestinian child was killed. So what I don't understand is all the indignation I've seen about the death of the Israeli child, but when it came to the Palestinian child there were all sorts of justifications and excuses made for why it was acceptable, even to the extent that someone called that child's death collateral damage...

Obviously you clearly disagree that there's no justification for the death of any child in this conflict. Oh well...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Hey, where can I read this War Rulebook?

All I've read is the Fourth Geneva Convention which is explicit about protecting children in a conflict. You also said that when children are primary targets it's a war crime and when it's accidental it's not. But because the occupation is carried out with a denial from Israel that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to them even though it clearly does, wouldn't that mean military action, including that which leads to the killing of Palestinian children would be war crimes too?


Violet...

[Gimel]

79. Is it only in jest...

...that Palestinians take pictures of two and three year-olds outfitted with bomb vests? Is it only in jest that they say they would blow up their own baby brother or sister to avenge their hatred? Are they trying to scare the Israelis? Or show how important their cause is? Is it cute to see a child ready to play a bomb? Maybe it's early childhood education program? Getting ready to play the real thing later in life?

Perhaps the deaths of Palestinians children is basically the result of this mentality that they raise the children to believe in and become.

[Jackie97]

82. Not all parents....

Not all parents are raising their children to die in the West Bank and Gaza strip. From what I understand, most suicide bombers refrain from telling their parents what they're about to do because their parents will try to stop them.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. I don't know what you think I was talking about...

..but I was talking about the Fourth Geneva Convention and what it applies to....

And boy, was that a broad stereotyping of the Palestinian people if ever I saw one! You know who's to blame for the deaths of children? The fuckers who murder them...

Violet...

[Jackie97]

76. Is IDF really killing children by accident?

They attack one Hamas member with a bomb knowing that it will kill innocents. So, it's intentional.

They set curfews and plan to kill if anybody breaks them. That's also intentional.

They occupy knowing that kids are going to resist their occupation. So, they go in there KNOWING IN ADVANCE WHAT THEIR ACTIONS WILL LEAD TO. They go in there knowing that they're going to end up killing kids.

When they destroy houses and water systems, they know it will lead kids to be homeless and to getting diseases from dirtry water. That can lead to their deaths. Therefore, that's also intentional.

When the Israeli government praised the PA for cutting off funding for Palestinian charities, they knew that it left a lot of Palestinian families to starve because they rely on that check. And why do they rely on that check? It's because the IDF is keeping many Palestinians from working for a living. Thus, the Israeli government and the IDF have been intentionally keeping Palestinians from being able to help themselves.

The killing of civilians by IDF (including children) is 100% intentional. Don't tell me it isn't. It's intentional because they do something knowing in advance what it will lead to. And don 't say that they're keeping the rules of war because the UN is disagreeing left and right.

[Jackie97]

77. And Yes, I am sympathetic towards Israeli children.....

I'm just also sympathetic towards Palestinian children too. You appear to think that IDF should be allowed to get away with what they want to because it's an "accident" (forget the fact that it's still intentional because they know what type of stuff they're going to end up doing beforehand). In other words, IDF can do as much killing as they want to, claim it's an accident or justified, and get away with it. It's claiming that IDF should not be held responsible for their constant killing. I don't know why, but this always reminds me of Britney Spears "Oops, I did it again". Maybe it's because IDF will kill somebody and then go "Oops, I did it again", and they honestly expect the world not to hold them responsible.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Proudlib]

25. I Think I Know

Just like pointing out anti-semitism in a post is bigger offense than actually expressing it, pointing out that some posters here are terrorist sympathizers is a bigger offense than actually expressing said sympathy.


I should have known.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

30. So it was Islamic Jihad, not Hamas...

Whoever planned this act, if it was planned, deserves a long time in jail.

[LastDemInIdaho]

84. Either one is as bad as the other or worse

Any and all members of both terrorist groups should and must be confined to a jail cell for life without parole. Groups that exist to terrorize and murder innocents need to be deleted as soon as possile.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Can we ask the mods to delete the IDF?

*snicker*

Violet...