Israeli

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

One of the more recent was the evacuation and demolition of Jewish homes in one portion.

Jimbeaux - please do some research. That wasn't a concession. It was a unilateral withdrawal for strategic reasons. (Harder to protect a few hundred people amongst 1.3 million palestinians) It had sweet foxtrot alpha to do with the peace process - in fact the Settlers were moved to the West Bank so why you think that was a concession Im not sure.

[anonymous-user]

Qwerte,

An Iron Dome each would be nicer.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 25th July 20:30

[s1962a]

Israel has rejected the latest peace proposal. I wonder what they found so questionable in it? Anyone have details of what was proposed ?

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

We fund Gaza too, to the tune of more than the "brother nations" do.

Their "brother nations" are a bunch of tyrannical despots more concerned with feathering their own nests than giving a monkey's about the welfare of their own population, let alone the Palestinians. is that really the peer group that the US compares itself to?

Iran tends to give them a fair amount of aid but apparently that not a "good thing".

[Grumfutock]

Art0ir said:

The IRA were defeated not because they were outsmarted or beaten by force, but because the local population grew tired of them.

Edited by Art0ir on Friday 25th July 20:06

Read your history. They never gave a flying fk about the locals and they ruled them with gangster like terror.

If the locals are tired of them then explain why they are still active? Bombings, knee capping and weapon finds still very common place.

[avinalarf]

s1962a said:

Israel has rejected the latest peace proposal. I wonder what they found so questionable in it? Anyone have details of what was proposed ?

They said they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't ,so they might as well try and finish the job of neutralising Hamas.

[Jimbeaux]

Countdown said:

Jimbeaux said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I would pick #2 but with Israel ironically being their most important trading partner whilst their relationship with the "brother nations" will be cold as they would be of no further use.

Their "brother nations" are a bunch of tyrannical despots more concerned with feathering their own nests than giving a monkey's about the welfare of their own population, let alone the Palestinians. is that really the peer group that the US compares itself to?

Iran tends to give them a fair amount of aid but apparently that not a "good thing".

No, but you raise a good point. A number of those brother nations you so efficiently pummeled are the ones that call for Israel's death using "Palestine" as their rallying call. So, you have in effect validated my long standing point that "Palestine" has st all to do with this whole thing. The real reason is they don't want Israel to exist.

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

No, but you raise a good point. A number of those brother nations you so efficiently pummeled are the ones that call for Israel's death using "Palestine" as their rallying call. So, you have in effect validated my long standing point that "Palestine" has st all to do with this whole thing. The real reason is they don't want Israel to exist.

That may have been the case a while ago, but people have moved on - and so have the territorial ambitions of Israel.

[Jimbeaux]

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

No, but you raise a good point. A number of those brother nations you so efficiently pummeled are the ones that call for Israel's death using "Palestine" as their rallying call. So, you have in effect validated my long standing point that "Palestine" has st all to do with this whole thing. The real reason is they don't want Israel to exist.

That may have been the case a while ago, but people have moved on - and so have the territorial ambitions of Israel.

That is your opinion, I believe they have not moved on at all.

[Countdown]

Jimbeaux said:

No, but you raise a good point. A number of those brother nations you so efficiently pummeled are the ones that call for Israel's death using "Palestine" as their rallying call. So, you have in effect validated my long standing point that "Palestine" has st all to do with this whole thing. The real reason is they don't want Israel to exist.

Who is the "they" that don't want Israel to exist? Egypt has made peace with osrael. Jordan has made peace with Israel. Syria has long said it would make peace with Israel if the Golan heights are returned (but Israel isn't willing to do that because of, yes you've guessed it, Settlements). there is no mythical "they" "brother nations" "Israel's right to exist.

This is the Palestinians, living in Israeli-occupied and Israeli-controlled territory who want the rights to self determination. The problem is that Israel wants the land but not the people. Short of large-scale forced deportation the only option it has is to restrict them to ever - smaller bits of land until they give up or have been killed. It's easy for the israeli PR machine to create faux-arguments about wy peace hasn't been achieved. the shirt answer is that while Uncle Sam keeps pumping £3.5 billion dollars of aid, apache helicopters and fighter jets, there's no need for Israel to seek peace.

[Einion Yrth]

This mess has been brewing for 58 years in recent history and a couple of thousand before that. Identifying "the truth" might be a little challenging; to my mind neither side could be considered immaculate, mostly however I suspect that the "little people" whatever their racial and religious differences just want to make a life for themselves and their families with the smallest possible likelihood of being either shot or blown up.

[-Z-]

Jimbeaux said:

Simple question: Hamas has cumulatively launched around 2,000 rockets this go around into Israel. Obviously Israel have the right to defend themselves, nobody disagrees there. Hamas has placed said rocket launchers in schools, hospitals, etc. It really leaves no choice for Israel but to hit them where they are. Hamas of course welcomes the dead Palestinian children because 1)That is fantastic publicity (which works well on you). 2)Because they do not give a damn about those Palestinians to begin with, so no loss there. That my friend, puts the murder on the heads of Hamas IMO. What is your solution?
Before you answer, drink this in; leaving that strip of land, pre-1967 borders, etc. will not mean a damn thing. Israel existing at all is what pisses these people off; Gaza is simply a useful rallying point and sideshow for people that fall for it.

Bullst.

How many Israelis have been killed by Rockets in the past 14 years?

28

How many Israeli's kill EACH other per year?

130

Israelis are 50 times more likely to be killed be each other than a Palestinian rocket.

The Israeli excuses are purely a PR attempt.

They want to decimate, kill and send a message to the Palestinians.

The message is murder one of ours and we will murder a hundred more of your children.

It is no more a justification than those that poured from the mouth of Hitler.

[avinalarf]

-Z- said:

Bullst.

How many Israelis have been killed by Rockets in the past 14 years?

28

How many Israeli's kill EACH other per year?

130

Israelis are 50 times more likely to be killed be each other than a Palestinian rocket.

The Israeli excuses are purely a PR attempt.

They want to decimate, kill and send a message to the Palestinians.

The message is murder one of ours and we will murder a hundred more of your children.

It is no more a justification than those that poured from the mouth of Hitler.

Your talking bks as usual.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Jimbeaux said:

Hamas has placed said rocket launchers in schools, hospitals, etc. It really leaves no choice for Israel but to hit them where they are. Hamas of course welcomes the dead Palestinian children because 1)That is fantastic publicity (which works well on you). 2)Because they do not give a damn about those Palestinians to begin with, so no loss there. That my friend, puts the murder on the heads of Hamas IMO.

Hamas do not fire rockets from schools. I know this because the leader of Hamas, Mashal, said so on the news last night, from his luxury residence in Doha, Qatar. He said it was an Israeli lie. When it was pointed out that the UN has also confirmed rockets were fired from schools, he said it was an Israeli lie.

Watching him, I got the feeling he might have been lying though. I've seen him interviewed before and when he lies there's a give away sign...his lips move.

[-Z-]

avinalarf said:

Your talking bks as usual.

Page from the IDF website

http://www.idfblog.com/facts-figures/rocket-attack...

Funny how figures for Israeli rocket attack deaths are strangely not mentioned isn't it?

Instead you get a picture of a damaged sofa.

And I love the bit where they mention the current operation whilst in the same breath talk about limited civilian casualties

I mean all we hear is rockets, rockets, rockets. Ask any lay person how many Israelis are killed a year by rockets and they answer in the hundreds.

Tell them the actual answer of TWO and they are some what disbelieving.

So Israel justifies over 800 Palestinians killed in the past few weeks with 2 rocket deaths per year.

Justify this action by other means if you need to but please, stop going on about the damn rockets.

Edited by -Z- on Friday 25th July 22:53

[Regiment]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Hamas do not fire rockets from schools. I know this because the leader of Hamas, Mashal, said so on the news last night, from his luxury residence in Doha, Qatar. He said it was an Israeli lie. When it was pointed out that the UN has also confirmed rockets were fired from schools, he said it was an Israeli lie.

Watching him, I got the feeling he might have been lying though. I've seen him interviewed before and when he lies there's a give away sign...his lips move.

When nurses and staff workers for the UN have been interviewed on Sky News, they've always said that they've never had any first hand knowledge of rockets being fired from schools or hospitals. They've been UN aid workers, nurses and doctors that have shown footage of unmarked people working with them to look for survivors and stood with them, who were clearly marked as Red Cross, being killed by Israeli snipers.

The Israeli government is no better or worse than Hamas, they've just got bigger toys to play with and more religious fanatics to appease.

[avinalarf]

-Z- said:

avinalarf said:

Your talking bks as usual.

Page from the IDF website

http://www.idfblog.com/facts-figures/rocket-attack...

Funny how figures for Israeli rocket attack deaths are strangely not mentioned isn't it?

Instead you get a picture of a damaged sofa.

And I love the bit where they mention the current operation whilst in the same breath talk about limited civilian casualties

When you start discussing how many Shia murder Sunnii and Sunni murder Shia, or post your feelings about the 200 innocent girls kidnapped by Boko Haram or all the other atrocities visited upon Muslim by Muslim.
When you march in the capitals of European cities demonstrating about all that ,maybe then I would be more interested in what you have to comment.
When you post comments and statistics put it into context.

[-Z-]

avinalarf said:

When you start discussing how many Shia murder Sunnii and Sunni murder Shia, or post your feelings about the 200 innocent girls kidnapped by Boko Haram or all the other atrocities visited upon Muslim by Muslim.
When you march in the capitals of European cities demonstrating about all that ,maybe then I would be more interested in what you have to comment.
When you post comments and statistics put it into context.

That's st as well and is perpetrated by fking idiots, but I lump the Israeli government into that same group of anti-human behavior.

[Mr Snap]

Mrr T said:

Mr Snap said:

Back to the parsing ploy, eh? I'm perfectly capable of following a cogent argument presented in one piece, thank you. Parsing only makes it difficult to respond unless one is prepared to undergo death by embedding.

Parsing allows one to answer the specific arguments where as you like to answer things I never said. Typical lefty false flag ploy.

As I said before, parsing confers benefits on the first person to do it but not those who follow. It allows you to break up the flow uniquely to your benefit. Still, if you insist on parsing, then I must insist that you retain my parsing to formulate your next response. It's only polite.
As another aid to cogent discussion, I'd also appreciate it if you were to express yourself in standard English. I'm not a stickler by any means and I also make errors - but I do try to correct them. You, on the contrary, don't - you seem to expect others to do the work for you. If you seriously wish to make a point then it's only good manners to make it easily legible. Or do you think that freedom of expression allows the freedom to express yourself inadequately? The sleep of reason, as Goya observed, produces monsters.

Mrr T said:

Mr Snap said:

Where did I say there was a book called "Eurabia"? It's a term used to describe his, and others, theory that there is an Islamic plot to overthrow Europe within one generation. It's a term used freely by the people who believe the theory, much like Melanie Phillip's similarly noxious "Londonistan" epithet. The fact that you're unaware of the term merely shows your shallow knowledge of the subject.

I see you have still not read the book and have no sense of humour.

Here we go again. Where is your proof? How is it that you feel you can make an assertions - and be believed - without supplying proof? Since you often ask for proof yourself, it's hypocritical simply to make assertions without backing them up. Instead of saying that I haven't read the book, prove it. Don't just assert that I've either done something or not - especially if you're going to put on a patronising air that you know best - put up, or shut up.
It seems you've gone back to your problems with the whisky bottle. You remember, the whiskey bottle that you said people had to prove doesn't exist to prove their innocence.? I must put that one past one of my lawyer friends. It's amazing that "The burden of not being able to provide no proof" isn't already enshrined in UK law: Think of all the people you could send down for failing to provide proof of no proof! It would completely relieve the prosecution of the drag of having to prove anything at all. All they'd have to do is turn to the accused and demand that they prove they didn't whack Mrrs T over the head with the candlestick! "What, you can't prove you didn't have a candlestick!?" They wouldn't even need to find a body! I'm sorry Mrr T, you're going down and all due to your brilliant legal mind.
(Oh, by the way, didn't anyone tell you that telling a Jew that he has no sense of humour is a bad move? We have 'ologies in making people like you look like schmucks).

Mrr T said:

Mr Snap said:

"Pre-modern Islam beats post-modern Christianity... [Much of the Western world] will not survive the twenty-first century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most European countries." America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It - M Steyn. Pub Regenery 2006.
Clearly, anyone who ascribes to this plot theory, sees the world in radically different terms to any normal person. And anyone who believes this theory thinks war has already been declared and that the enemy is within the gates - meaning that all and any concerted action against Islam is justified and the ends will justify the means. To true believers, Gaza is a sideshow in the crusade against Islam and Steyn is their prophet.

I see you have still not read the book and have no sense of humour. Yawn.

Oh dear. Back in the day you said.. "I assume you are referring to the book "Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight of the West " You say have read the book. So why do you comment about things which are not in the book?"
I've never claimed to read that book (you can look) and, yet, you accuse me of not having read it, err, again. Now I hate to point out what nonsense that is - especially after the whisky bottle debacle. But telling me that I haven't read a book that I've never claimed to have read is a teensy bit stupid, if you ask me. What I did was to quote a different book and I supplied a citation (those are the funny little words straight after the quote. But I suppose you already know that because you always ask other people to supply them...?). Never mind, it's just you making an ill-judged assertion again.
I dunno, if you're trying to make yourself look even more of a schmuck, you're doing a great job.

Mrr T said:

Mr Snap said:

Like pornographers and extreme left-wingers (of which I am not one, thanks) Steyn is only interested in "Freedom of Speech" in so far as it allows him to produce his own racist bile. Be under no illusion, should his hopes come to fruition such freedoms would soon be curtailed. The freedom to be a Moslem, for instance, would rapidly become a life threatening proposition. Borderline fascism.

Like most left winger you clearly have no idea about free speech. Since I do believe in free speech you are welcome to continue spouting rubbish.

Evidence? (I got that trick from you - you must be so proud!) Please prove that I know nothing of free speech. Otherwise, keep your nasty assertions to yourself. I'm rude to you because your arguments don't hold water. You just sling ad homs without backing them up and expect people to bow down to them. Please prove specifically why I'm "spouting rubbish" or go down as someone who relies on assertions without backing them up. That's not the action of someone with a fine appreciation of freedom of speech, that's merely a ploy to divert attention from your own failings. You accused me of not listening and I went on to prove that I did. It's time for you to prove you're capable of listening and responding with factual proof. Otherwise, all you're doing is trying to silence debate. And that doesn't fit with your protestation that you love the freedom of expression.

Mrr T said:

Mr Snap said:

'Drek' is yiddish for crap. Which is what Steyn's stuff is. It's also the term [drecht] used by Heidegger to describe Sartre's "On Being and Nothingness", in which Sartre ripped off Heidegger's ideas without understanding them. I thought you might like it.

Thank you I was not aware of that. I can only say I am glad to describe you post as drek.

Why should I have to bother to work out what those two sentences mean? Your sloppiness in expressing yourself merely underlines the sloppiness of your thinking. You claim to prove things wrong when, in realty, you can't. You can't marshall a cogent argument for toffee. All you do is fall back on tired insults and unproven assertions.

Mrr T said:

Mr Snap said:

As for Simon Dunstan, you now appear to be back peddling, you argued earlier that his work was authoritative.

You diminish my research into allnighter revisionist history of the Arab/Israeli conflicts into "STUFF".

Mrr T said:

Not sure what I am supported to prove but these are the 2 books I have read on the conflict. Both are fully researched with references and take a very different view on events to those posted by allnighter in his history.

Take your choice who you believe.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Six-Day-War-1967/dp/18...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Days-War-Making-Modern...

Mrr T said:

I see why you hate parsing. It means you can disagree with something I did not say. Typical.

Your research. Your words. Apparently the term "Useful Idiot" wasn't invented by Lenin but that's what the ultra-zionists have in you - except it's a slur on the idiots who really are useful

Edited by Mr Snap on Saturday 26th July 00:11

[allnighter]

Mr Snap , Mate, I think we have already sussed him out to be the kind of masochist who likes to be reduced to small pebbles so he can live eternally at the bottom of the ocean. He loves the attention you are giving him. Don't feed the troll and file him under ignore.

BTW poor s1962a is still looking for the damn proof the Whiskey bottle wasn't in his garden.... or was it? I am confused! :P