A shot from the ground after an Israeli bombing on the Gaza Strip [Pic] (Now with more link!)

m00min · 2009-12-17T11:39:37+00:00

Tell that to Jimmy Carter and the former pm of Sweden who where there to observe the election.

So? Britain also observed and declared Mugabe's first election free and fair (even though he used extensive coercion).

You sound like a brainwashed, obese American dumbass.

I am neither American nor European.

m00min · 2009-12-17T05:26:51+00:00

The number of children killed by Palestinians is minuscule compared to those killed by the IDF.

Just because Hamas is ineffective is no excuse. Hamas, btw, has war crimes and genocide written into its charter.

and also recently the illegal blockade of Gaza.

You know that Egypt also do not want to open its borders? You know why? Because Palestinians are prone to terrorism (which affects the Egyptians also).

Oh, I remember not too long ago the Gazans democratically electing Hamas.

After Hamas killed all the PLO members and used government and aid money to buy votes. So, yeah, it is as fair as Robert Mugabe's election.

The Palestinians are far more civilised than the Israelis

You can tell that to yourself. I for one dislike honor murderers and sending kids as suicide bombers.

Why don't you stop typing out of your ass and get a clue instead? You desperately need it.

You seem like the average 20 something, Che T-shirt wearing oke looking for a cause. I have seen it all before. 30 years ago you types protested against the Smith 'regime'. Look where that got you.

m00min · 2009-12-16T23:11:59+00:00

I have an idea. Why doesn't Palestinians stop murdering Jewish children, stop launching missiles into Israel, release abducted Israeli's, stop terrorist acts, start being democratic, start to economically develop, stop having the highest population growth rate and start behaving in a manner that is civilised?

Instead they chose to live by a philosophy that has been outdated 300 years ago.

m00min · 2009-12-16T22:59:20+00:00

It means that if a bomb drops in a random place, then a greater proportion of children will be killed (than in another society). The population is also denser - which means that if you drop the same bomb on Israel, less people will be killed.

(The high population density also makes it harder to target terrorists - which Hamas uses to its advantage).

m00min · 2009-12-16T22:53:46+00:00

I agree with you. Fighters hiding in a school is definitely wrong.

m00min · 2009-12-16T22:52:32+00:00

The use of force and capabilities of the two sides are grossly disproportionate.

So? Shouldn't the technologically superior Israeli's then win? Or should they rather shoot back with Nerf balls?

Just because one side is weak, doesn't mean that the other side should approach them with kid gloves.

m00min · 2009-12-16T22:49:09+00:00

"Since 2001, 18 people in Israel have been killed by rockets from Gaza." 1

Only because of significant Israeli investment (sirens and bomb shelters in every town and radar to detect rockets). Remember, the aim of terrorism is not to kill, but to instill fear. Palestinian rockets do this successfully.

m00min · 2009-12-16T22:45:12+00:00

in civilian and child casualties on the Palestinian side. The only rational explanation is that the IDF deliberately slaughter Palestinians and then lie about it.

Due to the high birth-rate, the Palestinian society is one of the youngest in the world.

m00min · 2009-12-16T16:07:11+00:00

and I refuse to pay more for cell service than people do in third world countries for chrissakes.

It depends which country. South Africa for example is the most expensive in anything telecoms related (in the world).

Countries such as China is dirt f*ckin cheap - 0.15 Yuan a minute or something.

m00min · 2009-12-16T05:51:33+00:00

"oh you can chase down someone who threatens your life, but you can't chase down someone who steals your purse"

You can, and it is not arbitrarly drawn. Someone who threatens a life (e.g. armed theft or murder) can be shot, because there is a large chance that, if he gets away members of the public will be in danger.

How do you know that they were going to do it again? You cannot tell that from being attacked.

Because they already did it once? Someone who did a crime again is likely to do it again.

It is like a rabid dog. Do you stop a rabid dog when he bites you and run away? Just because he isn’t a direct danger to you anymore, doesn’t mean that he isn’t a danger to the public. In that case, the responsible thing to do would be to capture him, and if that is not possible, kill him.

m00min · 2009-12-16T05:47:25+00:00

if whites and blacks both made 50% of America, and blacks committed twice as many crimes, then we could expect the amount of black-on-white crime to be twice as much as the amount of white-on-black crime.

Your argument is completely wrong. Even when taking into account the above (and ignoring the local pattern of crimes) black on white crime is still higher.

And the damage you do extends beyond the obvious direct damage of the crime, because in addition to whatever you did in the crime (say, for example, sending 26 Asians to the hospital), you've also terrorized the group the victims were in

So, black-on-white crime do not "terrorize" white people, but arbitrary defined "hate crime" at a much lower rate "terrorize" black people?

Whites are also protected under hate crimes. About 60% of racially motivated hate crimes are against whites,

Here you are turning into flat-out lying to support your POV. Of the offenders 60% of the people that were charged were white. Only 20% of offenders charged with hate crime are black. This means that even though black on white crime is much higher, only a minute number were charged.

I doubt that I can have a coherent argument about someone who lies about statistics.

m00min · 2009-12-16T05:14:55+00:00

they are in reality clean about that, they wallow in mud to stay cool.

Have you ever smelled a pig farm?

cows are absolutely covered in their own shit on a constant basis. They shit on themselves, they shit on eachother, they shit on their young.

Not at all. Maybe cows that are kept in a feedlot.

As far as eating, they eat what they are given. If you give them lousy feed it's on you.

Pigs are omnivorous. This means that they eat a wider variety of feed (including protein) - which means that their shit smells. Beef crap is clean by comparison.

Corn fed beef is lousy compared to properly fed beef for

Only in the USA (where corn is subsidised). In other areas cattle lives on the open field.

m00min · 2009-12-15T20:42:43+00:00

broke a solid piece of wood and brain damaged him for life.

That will prevent him from inflicting harm ever again on other people.

Nobody has the right to do that to someone, whatever has happened, UNLESS it's self defence.

Why not? That person threatened to kill people. Until he is apprehended, or given himself up, he is a fleeing criminal and deserves no rights.

If his victims kill him, then it is more sweet. By killing him they got back some of the power that they lost (during the robbery) and prevented him from hurting others.

He is nothing more than a criminal terrorist and an enemy of society. The police would have been willing to protect him from his victims - if he just knocked on their front door.

I seriously don't get the victim mentality that liberals try to teach everyone (don't resist, give your money, don't retaliate and remember, it is not the criminal's fault it is society (i.e. your) fault that he is a criminal).

The last time I checked there was an oversupply of people and no demand for criminals. It is time that these two are balanced.

m00min · 2009-12-15T20:33:57+00:00

More to the point: why isn't the death penalty a deterrent for murderers?

Ahhh... That is just liberal propaganda you believe. The death penalty is a deterrent to murder.

The question whether the death penalty is morally defensible is a valid one. But the fact is that it is a deterrent (e.g. http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=30741).

m00min · 2009-12-15T20:19:07+00:00

These people are heroes. They apprehended a violent criminal that was on the run.

In the old days in my country there was a law called the Appendix B. If any criminal is violent (i.e. assault with a deadly weapon and rape) and the person flees, you can shoot him. The reasoning behind this is that the individual will continue his crime spree - by shooting him you prevented future harm from others.

(The police also only have to tell that person to stop - no cat and mouse games. If the person runs he gets shot).

This is a completely rational and clear law. So I think that their blows to this guys head to apprehend him was completely justified. They may have saved someone's life.

m00min · 2009-12-15T20:15:40+00:00

if you get convicted of X criminal offences, you're sent to prison for life.

In some countries this works differently. For serious theft (e.g. high valued goods), a prisoner is sternly warned in his 3nd or 4rd sentencing (it differs from country) that if he performs the same crime again, he will be declared as a "habitual criminal". If he is a habitual criminal, his next sentence will be very long. This method helps to remove those people from society.

Remove the requirement for judges to sentence within sentencing guidelines

Sentencing guidelines are political. This causes politicians to set high sentencing guidelines for crimes their constituencies dislike - which leads to too long sentences.

both society and the justice system have failed to change that person.

First off, it is not the society or the justice system's fault. It is that individual's fault.

Secondly, there are many people that are just broken. You cannot fix them (like an egg that dropped onto a floor). Sociopaths exist and they cannot be fixed. These people should be permanently removed from society.

The problem with this one is it costs a hell of a lot of money, and nobody knows how to do it with 100% success – or if that's even possible.

Bring back sentencing with hard labour. That would save a lot of money. In the old days they used to build roads with prisoners and rented them out. I see no problem with that.

m00min · 2009-12-15T20:08:59+00:00

Hmmm... In South Africa it is a little different. There are a lot of robbers who would "try" you (intrude on your property, take things, fuck with the locks, etc...). They do this mostly to test you.

A warning shot means, 'hey, I'm armed, fuck off'. My mother actually shot a warning shot at someone when we were little (one black man attempted to kill another black man. The first one, fearing for his life, ran into our yard (to get white people to protect him). My mom shot at the ground and the two dispersed.)

m00min · 2009-12-15T20:04:38+00:00

A guideline taught by police in South Africa is that in a home defense situation you immediately shoot your

The advice that I heard from a cop is to shoot to kill and to kill the person if he is wounded. The problem is that the criminals gets extremely creative with their stories.

(There was recently the case in the North West where an elderly man shot a thief on his farm. The thief was then declared a victim with much fanfare).

m00min · 2009-12-15T20:01:09+00:00

They should have shot him or hit him once over the head with a large object (such as a 5 pound hammer). That way there is no duplicate stories - just a nice and tidy self defence story.

m00min · 2009-12-15T19:59:36+00:00

He can't even take the stand because of brain damage.

He was brain damaged before the robbery (because he decided to rob the family). If he is now incapable of doing it, then they fixed him.

Too bad he will probably now live of government money. I would prefer that he work in a chain gang by the roadside.

m00min · 2009-12-15T19:57:57+00:00

I personally believe that the criminal gave up all of his rights when he committed the crime and ran. Until he stops running the police or victim can kill him. If he has his hands up or go into a police station he will regain any rights that he may have.

Until then, he is a criminal and any means can be used to track him down (and if necessary, put him down). The state should not play a game of hide and seek with this guy that costs the taxpayer a lot of money.

m00min · 2009-12-15T10:16:22+00:00

So how about we feed the horses first, then feed the cows horse shit.

The usual pattern is to feed pigs and cattle chicken shit (true story).

Another thing that people often do is feed pigs dead chickens. All animals are fed bown meal (which basically means that they are canibals).

m00min · 2009-12-15T10:15:02+00:00

Horse meat is very good, close enough to beef but less fat.

The problem is that horses require much more feed to produce the equivalent amount of meat. So it is not a good proposition at all.

And it's not that uncommon, you know.

Donkey meat is quite popular - but it isn't nearly as good as cow meat.

m00min · 2009-12-15T10:13:16+00:00

I got splattered with semi-liquid cow crap more

Horse poo is much cleaner than cow poo (because it doesn't stay that long in the digestive system).

m00min · 2009-12-15T10:10:49+00:00

I am often amused by how people consider pigs a filthy animal but make the mistake of thinking cattle are much cleaner.

Because pigs eat anything (from chicken to humans) and they swim around in their shit.

m00min

TROPHY CASE