I'm 100% with Israel, firstly their "claim" to the land is several thousand years older than even the inception of Islam & the Palestinian "claim" and secondly because when 13 countries ganged up on them in 1967 to commit genuine cultural genocide (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War ), Israel kicked all their backsides - big time.
What completely unabashed twaddle. The US armed the Taliban.... so we recognise their legitimate right to rule Afghanistan because they kicked Russia's butt out of that land.... right?
Israel's claim is immaterial to any logical argument, as is any other "claim". You suggest it like the thousands of jews who never set foot on the land had one claim and a bunch of muslims from some other area that isn't Palestine also had a claim and Israel's was stronger.
There was an indigenous population who lived in the area for the past couple thousand years. People who from generation to generation built up the country, who lived there, who bought the land, who worked the land, who built the cities. THOSE people belong there...... no one else. Historical this and religious that. There were people who lived there on that land and made that country what it was(it's completely irrelevant how strong, good or bad a country is). Palestinians owned 89% of the land, and half of it was taken from them to give to people who did not come from there.
As for beating the crap out of everyone around there, again, they were completely immorally given the land(with numerous terrorist acts committed by the zionists leading up to Israel being formed), but they were also gifted arms and money the likes of which countries around them didn't have access to.
By your logic, if I find a descendant of someone who used to live in your house, they have a stronger claim to it and should be given your house and you should be thrown out by force. Then when I give that guy a minigun, and you have your fists and he kills you... he'll deserve the house because he "won" an almost completely one sided fight?
Brilliant logic.
nobody is saying that all men aged 20 to 29 are millitants.
But in amongst that massive list of dead 20 to 29 year old male civilians, its statistically highly likely that some of them are not in fact civilians at all.
After all , how exactly do you ask the dead body if he was a millitant or not ?
its easy to see the point of the article - that the statistica may not be 100 % accurate.
The article is just propaganda. Rather than talking about approaching 2000 people murdered through an illegal and reprehensible action, this article now has you wondering just how many were militants.
Here's a question, if Germany bombed London for a few days and happened to target military bases as well as civilians. 2000 people were killed, does it suddenly become okay if only 500 civilians were killed and 1500 "militants" were killed?
It's a argument that is trying to suggest more killings than we thought were somehow moral because these people were militants. Is it okay to murder members of a military now even when you started the conflict, you have overwhelming force and they pose no threat to you? It's trying to soften the number by instilling the idea that it's okay to kill militants, it's not.
As for why a disproportionate number of people were men aged 20-29... lol, the idea that a lot of them must be military is laughable. When the draft happened in WW1/2, what ages groups were the main ones drafted, 65 year olds, what about 40 year old mothers, pensioners? When buildings are falling down, people need to be dug out, fires need to be put out, people need saving and taking to hospital men aged 20-29 are simply the main group of able bodied people who will be helping out in such situations.
Again if we go back to London being bombed, after the bombing stops and people run out to dig people out of rubble, which age group would have been BY FAR the most involved and skew the numbers heavily, strong healthy young men.
To use this as a suggestion that they are all militants when simple logic suggests why that age group was disproportionately involved is laughable, and it's being done as a suggestion that killing militants is okay in a completely illegal horrendous conflict. Neither argument remotely stands up.
18-35 is just when men are healthiest, strongest, fastest and most physically capable of helping out when jobs of a physical nature are done. They are also the age group most involved in dangerous jobs, in general women are seen as needing protection as they carry/look after the young, men are effectively disposable, always have been and younger less experienced men, men that haven't become leaders or specialised are again seen as more expendable. When people rush to the front lines to save people from buildings, it's young men that are the largest group to do so.
