[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Not at all. Israel never listens to the UN. Nor should it. End of problem. And since Israel doesn't murder "Palestinians", but only takes their lives in self-fence, there can be no question who is at fault there. If you are too much of a fool to see that, it sounds like a personal problem. I personally recommend therapy, maybe after some good inpatient work to get you on some good meds.

[Rama Set]

And since Israel doesn't murder "Palestinians", but only takes their lives in self-fence, there can be no question who is at fault there.

You would not believe, but MANY times. I would direct you to the website of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.

http://elyon1.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html

I would say about half the time of the cases I've reviewed, the Government and/or military have lost.

Not one of the cases you reviewed had to do with a wrongful death?

[Vindictus]

Not at all. Israel never listens to the UN. Nor should it. End of problem.

Good thing I never said that then.

[Lord Dave]

What's the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why becomes irrelevant?

Look at blood transfusions.  Why was it forbidden?  Because it could kill both of you since no one knew about needles or blood types and blood diseases.  Can we do it safely now?  Absolutely.  So the why has become irrelevant and thus the law needs to be changed.  But it never will.  Hence why Jews live in such a primitive time compared to Christians.

Ah, what? Maybe you are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses? Jews take blood. I took 2 full transfusions a few years ago. And JWs don't refuse for the reasons you suggest. they refuse because God ordered that we are not to eat blood, and they take that order to the extreme of not taking blood into the body in ANY way. You need to get your facts straight, Dude.

My point still stands: what is the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why is irrelevant?

Also, no evidence exists that Moses asked god why.  We know this because rabbi's have been debating it for centuries and Moses made no mention of reasons anywhere.

I'm sure there are more than a few outdated laws you have to follow.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

And since Israel doesn't murder "Palestinians", but only takes their lives in self-fence, there can be no question who is at fault there.

You would not believe, but MANY times. I would direct you to the website of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.

http://elyon1.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html

I would say about half the time of the cases I've reviewed, the Government and/or military have lost.

Not one of the cases you reviewed had to do with a wrongful death?

Actually, several of them did. I personally don't believe there is such a thing as a wrongful death when a soldier kills a "Palestinian" for throwing a potentially lethal rock or other projectile at him. But the Supreme Court does.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

What's the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why becomes irrelevant?

Look at blood transfusions.  Why was it forbidden?  Because it could kill both of you since no one knew about needles or blood types and blood diseases.  Can we do it safely now?  Absolutely.  So the why has become irrelevant and thus the law needs to be changed.  But it never will.  Hence why Jews live in such a primitive time compared to Christians.

Ah, what? Maybe you are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses? Jews take blood. I took 2 full transfusions a few years ago. And JWs don't refuse for the reasons you suggest. they refuse because God ordered that we are not to eat blood, and they take that order to the extreme of not taking blood into the body in ANY way. You need to get your facts straight, Dude.

My point still stands: what is the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why is irrelevant?

Also, no evidence exists that Moses asked god why.  We know this because rabbi's have been debating it for centuries and Moses made no mention of reasons anywhere.

I'm sure there are more than a few outdated laws you have to follow.

As I expect you follow a few without even realising it. Someone sneezes, what do you say? A good atheist as you should say nothing. But, I'l bet you dollars to donuts you say "bless you." Not a divine law, granted, but I bet you follow it.

[Tau]

What's the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why becomes irrelevant?

Look at blood transfusions.  Why was it forbidden?  Because it could kill both of you since no one knew about needles or blood types and blood diseases.  Can we do it safely now?  Absolutely.  So the why has become irrelevant and thus the law needs to be changed.  But it never will.  Hence why Jews live in such a primitive time compared to Christians.

Ah, what? Maybe you are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses? Jews take blood. I took 2 full transfusions a few years ago. And JWs don't refuse for the reasons you suggest. they refuse because God ordered that we are not to eat blood, and they take that order to the extreme of not taking blood into the body in ANY way. You need to get your facts straight, Dude.

My point still stands: what is the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why is irrelevant?

Also, no evidence exists that Moses asked god why.  We know this because rabbi's have been debating it for centuries and Moses made no mention of reasons anywhere.

I'm sure there are more than a few outdated laws you have to follow.

As I expect you follow a few without even realising it. Someone sneezes, what do you say? A good atheist as you should say nothing. But, I'l bet you dollars to donuts you say "bless you." Not a divine law, granted, but I bet you follow it.

He probably also says 'thank you' when someone does something for him. 'Bless you' does not have religious connotations anymore. It's just a standard phrase used by polite people. Politeness is not a religion.

[Rushy]

As I expect you follow a few without even realising it. Someone sneezes, what do you say? A good atheist as you should say nothing. But, I'l bet you dollars to donuts you say "bless you." Not a divine law, granted, but I bet you follow it.

The phrase most likely originated from paganism, not a particular religion, and especially not an Abrahamic one.

[Pete Svarrior]

But, I'l bet you dollars to donuts you say "bless you."

Depends on which language is appropriate for me to use.

In English, yes, because I've been taught that's the thing to say. It has nothing to do with religion.

In other languages, I'd say "for health"

[Blanko]

The Finnish equivalent is "terveydeksi", which also translates to "for [your] health".

[beardo]

I never say anything when someone sneezes. I think it's a silly custom.

[Lord Dave]

What's the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why becomes irrelevant?

Look at blood transfusions.  Why was it forbidden?  Because it could kill both of you since no one knew about needles or blood types and blood diseases.  Can we do it safely now?  Absolutely.  So the why has become irrelevant and thus the law needs to be changed.  But it never will.  Hence why Jews live in such a primitive time compared to Christians.

Ah, what? Maybe you are thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses? Jews take blood. I took 2 full transfusions a few years ago. And JWs don't refuse for the reasons you suggest. they refuse because God ordered that we are not to eat blood, and they take that order to the extreme of not taking blood into the body in ANY way. You need to get your facts straight, Dude.

My point still stands: what is the point of asking why if you don't change the law when the why is irrelevant?

Also, no evidence exists that Moses asked god why.  We know this because rabbi's have been debating it for centuries and Moses made no mention of reasons anywhere.

I'm sure there are more than a few outdated laws you have to follow.

As I expect you follow a few without even realising it. Someone sneezes, what do you say? A good atheist as you should say nothing. But, I'l bet you dollars to donuts you say "bless you." Not a divine law, granted, but I bet you follow it.

Then you best get me some Krispy Kreams because I do not say "bless you".  I've long since gotten myself out of that habit.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

So you've allowed atheism to overcome even common courtesy. What a nasty, rude little boy.

[Lord Dave]

So you've allowed atheism to overcome even common courtesy. What a nasty, rude little boy.

Tell me, what do you say when someone coughs?

Also, just because I don't say "bless you" does not mean I say nothing.  Don't be so limited in your thinking.

[Rama Set]

And since Israel doesn't murder "Palestinians", but only takes their lives in self-fence, there can be no question who is at fault there.

You would not believe, but MANY times. I would direct you to the website of the Supreme Court of the State of Israel.

http://elyon1.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html

I would say about half the time of the cases I've reviewed, the Government and/or military have lost.

Not one of the cases you reviewed had to do with a wrongful death?

Actually, several of them did. I personally don't believe there is such a thing as a wrongful death when a soldier kills a "Palestinian" for throwing a potentially lethal rock or other projectile at him. But the Supreme Court does.

So even Israel's own supreme court thinks the IDF unlawfully kills (read: murders) Palestinians and yet you maintain they don't. You look like a delusional Zionist at this point. Or more of one I suppose.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

A wrongful death does NOT automatically imply murder. It may imply that, or it may imply a lesser offence, such as manslaughter, or excessive use of force. You obviusly know little of the law.

[DuckDodgers]

Is manslaughter not a type of murder charge?

[Lord Dave]

Is manslaughter not a type of murder charge?

Why, it is.  It's the lowest degree of murder.  But still murder.

[Rama Set]

A wrongful death does NOT automatically imply murder. It may imply that, or it may imply a lesser offence, such as manslaughter, or excessive use of force. You obviusly know little of the law.

Shall we agree on culpable homicide then?  I can tell you this, if the killing was justified, and military gets a wide latitude on the term justification, then the court would not have found against them in all likelihood. 

You also get a lot of interesting results if you google IDF Court Martial.  Not necessarily relating to murders, but to other reprehensible actions.

[Rama Set]

Is manslaughter not a type of murder charge?

Why, it is.  It's the lowest degree of murder.  But still murder.

The trick here is that these wrongful deaths are all civil suits and may not have any criminal charges associated with them.  Obviously the Israeli government would be loath to charge their soldiers with culpable homicide, but it is obvious that the Israeli judiciary does not see some of their killings as self-defense, or justified in any way.