Discussion
Mr Snap said:
It's a nice idea but I don't think you're fully aware of the tactics the Israelis have been using for years at checkpoints. Checks are carried out at a snails pace and long queues form; in summer, vegetables perish in the heat, supplies of water etc are unavailable and shade limited. So, basically, Palestinians are discouraged from crossing a check point unless they have to.
If you were to put the same international force on the check points it might work but the system is, essentially, prone to abuse.
Hi Snap,If you were to put the same international force on the check points it might work but the system is, essentially, prone to abuse.
I hear what you say and appreciate the heat - it's bad enough here in Cyprus right now but tolerable I can imagine what it's like at Raffah.
So, how else can one guarantee 'zero' rockets exiting Gaza if not closing the tunnels & searching at the crossing?
I trust Hamas as much as you, plus, as I've mentioned previously in this thread there are armed groups in Gaza that even Hamas cannot control.
Phil
Mr Snap said:
Countdown said:
Logically I would say partitioning the land and making them both share is the only reasonable solution.
Yes, but the devil is in the detail. As the British found out in India, drawing a line on the map can have fatal consequences. Trying to create two equable states in that region - where one does not have a huge advantages over the other, eg in water resources - will be a hard, hard, job.
Mr Snap said:
Sorry, that's a no no. You're supposed to maintain the construction of my (and ultimately your) original parsing. You said it was a far better way of handling the points made in a discussion. Now you've gone and changed the method you insisted upon in the first place.
Could it be that by breaking my parsing into chunks, you're using another ploy to avoid addressing my substantive points? Again. Can I see a pattern developing? It's a bit like your saying you wouldn't engage with me then coming back again...and again. I have to say you're very consistent in your utter inconsistency, it tends to make me think you don't think things through...
You still don't get the whisky thing, do you? You told allnighter that it was his job to 'prove' that there were no whisky bottles in his neighbour's garden, not your job to prove they were actually there. You used the inability to provide proof of non-existence as justification for Israel's actions in bombing civilians. I'm sorry, but even at the time both allnighter and I took you to pieces; it's completely barmy and you made yourself look a fool by suggesting it.
Let's repeat another example for clarity:
Judge Dredd - Mrr T, are there arms stashed in your neighbours garden?
Mrr T - I don't know.
Judge Dredd - Sorry, that's not good enough. Please prove there are no bombs or I will be forced to blow you to bits.
Mrr T - I am unable to prove there are no bombs in my neighbours garden, he says he will shoot me if I try looking.
Judge Dredd - Sorry, that's just not good enough. Would you prefer the tank shell or an RPG..? I'm doing a special on RPG's this week.
Yes, I've read Steyn, I read the book I referred to and a number of articles. They make me feel dirty. Last time I told you about "The Protocols", this time, why not look up "The Yellow Peril" - it's another example of racist right-wing nut-jobs using scare tactics to incite hatred. Steyn is no different. For all his writing skills, he's an unpleasant racist.
Anyway, I hate to criticise your understanding of English again, but saying I have "read Steyn" is not the same as saying "I have read all of Steyn". I have never claimed to have read all of Steyn. Have you read all of Steyn?
Anyway, let's do another example for clarity...
I have read both "MansField Park" and "Sense and Sensibilty". I have not read "Pride and Prejudice" or any of the other titles in Jane Austen's oeuvre. Even so, this allows me to say that "I have read Jane Austen". I have not read all of Jane Austen, but enough to to say "I have read Jane Austen" and have a pretty well formed view as to her works. (i.e. I'm pretty sure she didn't turn to science fiction in her old age but I stand to be corrected).
By a similar token, you call me a left-wing nutter regularly. Are you sure you've read enough Hegel, Feurbach, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Polly Toynbee to justify that claim - or do you just sniff it in the ether across the internet?
Anyway, I hope that clarifies the use of the word "read" for you. Beyond that, I can't compensate for stupid.
As for the difference between facts and commentary, I think I know the difference. What you fail to understand is the concept of debate. Whenever I dismantle a point of yours, you divert attention from the substantive points of my argument and respond not with reasoned argument but with comments like "you have no idea about free speech". But you say this without backing them up with proof of why I have no idea.
Without a clear exposition of the flaws in my argument, just saying I'm wrong doesn't win. Similarly calling me left-wing without providing evidence as to why is just name calling. It turns adult debate into a childish bout of "yes it is - no it isn't". (And, I think, that's why allnighter suggested you were a troll; not without with some justification).
Pleading that I took your words out of context won't wash. You said you understood the complexities of the Six Day War through your extensive reading. Your reading turned out to be the adult equivalent of a Ladybird book and one written by an ultra-zionist ex Israeli Ambassador. If you think that's rounded research, I'm Shirley Temple.
In summation: You can't argue logically, you don't understand plain English and you use childish ploys to avoid substantive issues. If I was you, I'd stop digging.
A Mr Snap response lets get out the check list.Could it be that by breaking my parsing into chunks, you're using another ploy to avoid addressing my substantive points? Again. Can I see a pattern developing? It's a bit like your saying you wouldn't engage with me then coming back again...and again. I have to say you're very consistent in your utter inconsistency, it tends to make me think you don't think things through...
You still don't get the whisky thing, do you? You told allnighter that it was his job to 'prove' that there were no whisky bottles in his neighbour's garden, not your job to prove they were actually there. You used the inability to provide proof of non-existence as justification for Israel's actions in bombing civilians. I'm sorry, but even at the time both allnighter and I took you to pieces; it's completely barmy and you made yourself look a fool by suggesting it.
Let's repeat another example for clarity:
Judge Dredd - Mrr T, are there arms stashed in your neighbours garden?
Mrr T - I don't know.
Judge Dredd - Sorry, that's not good enough. Please prove there are no bombs or I will be forced to blow you to bits.
Mrr T - I am unable to prove there are no bombs in my neighbours garden, he says he will shoot me if I try looking.
Judge Dredd - Sorry, that's just not good enough. Would you prefer the tank shell or an RPG..? I'm doing a special on RPG's this week.
Yes, I've read Steyn, I read the book I referred to and a number of articles. They make me feel dirty. Last time I told you about "The Protocols", this time, why not look up "The Yellow Peril" - it's another example of racist right-wing nut-jobs using scare tactics to incite hatred. Steyn is no different. For all his writing skills, he's an unpleasant racist.
Anyway, I hate to criticise your understanding of English again, but saying I have "read Steyn" is not the same as saying "I have read all of Steyn". I have never claimed to have read all of Steyn. Have you read all of Steyn?
Anyway, let's do another example for clarity...
I have read both "MansField Park" and "Sense and Sensibilty". I have not read "Pride and Prejudice" or any of the other titles in Jane Austen's oeuvre. Even so, this allows me to say that "I have read Jane Austen". I have not read all of Jane Austen, but enough to to say "I have read Jane Austen" and have a pretty well formed view as to her works. (i.e. I'm pretty sure she didn't turn to science fiction in her old age but I stand to be corrected).
By a similar token, you call me a left-wing nutter regularly. Are you sure you've read enough Hegel, Feurbach, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Polly Toynbee to justify that claim - or do you just sniff it in the ether across the internet?
Anyway, I hope that clarifies the use of the word "read" for you. Beyond that, I can't compensate for stupid.
As for the difference between facts and commentary, I think I know the difference. What you fail to understand is the concept of debate. Whenever I dismantle a point of yours, you divert attention from the substantive points of my argument and respond not with reasoned argument but with comments like "you have no idea about free speech". But you say this without backing them up with proof of why I have no idea.
Without a clear exposition of the flaws in my argument, just saying I'm wrong doesn't win. Similarly calling me left-wing without providing evidence as to why is just name calling. It turns adult debate into a childish bout of "yes it is - no it isn't". (And, I think, that's why allnighter suggested you were a troll; not without with some justification).
Pleading that I took your words out of context won't wash. You said you understood the complexities of the Six Day War through your extensive reading. Your reading turned out to be the adult equivalent of a Ladybird book and one written by an ultra-zionist ex Israeli Ambassador. If you think that's rounded research, I'm Shirley Temple.
In summation: You can't argue logically, you don't understand plain English and you use childish ploys to avoid substantive issues. If I was you, I'd stop digging.
Length – Huge
False flag arguments - Yes -I even summarised the posts for him but he still says something else was being said.
Inconsistency – Yes -So far he has read Mark Steyn, not read him, and now he read him again.
Insults – Yes lots.
Claims of victory – Yes lots.
Any mention of changing my post to suit his own arguments – Zero.
A true keyboard warrior.
Hilts said:
supersingle said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Israel haven't yet used a nuke.
You're not wrong.The assumption was if the Iranians had nukes they'd automatically use them which is b
ks. Total bks.TwigtheWonderkid said:
it's just an opinion. And in my opinion, they'd use them in a heartbeat. Why wouldn't they? Any retaliatory strike, which is what keeps most sane governments from using nukes, would be welcomed by Iran as it would be classed as martyrdom or whatever, with the virgins and everything that death in jihad comes with.
It's great you have an opinion, no matter how clueless.Go and read what you just wrote.
Martyrdom, jihad. Jesus.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Hilts said:
supersingle said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Israel haven't yet used a nuke.
You're not wrong.The assumption was if the Iranians had nukes they'd automatically use them which is b
ks. Total bks.
Hilts said:
supersingle said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but Israel haven't yet used a nuke.
You're not wrong.The assumption was if the Iranians had nukes they'd automatically use them which is b
ks. Total bks.Iranians wouldn't use nukes for the same reason other countries wouldn't use nukes in a first strike against a nuclear-armed opponent; it pretty much assures that nukes will be used against you.
Countdown said:
Agreed.
Iranians wouldn't use nukes for the same reason other countries wouldn't use nukes in a first strike against a nuclear-armed opponent; it pretty much assures that nukes will be used against you.
But other governments don't want their citizens to die. Iran couldn't give a flying fIranians wouldn't use nukes for the same reason other countries wouldn't use nukes in a first strike against a nuclear-armed opponent; it pretty much assures that nukes will be used against you.
k. The Iran / Iraq war taught us that. They were quite happy to fight a war of attrition. Hilts said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
it's just an opinion. And in my opinion, they'd use them in a heartbeat. Why wouldn't they? Any retaliatory strike, which is what keeps most sane governments from using nukes, would be welcomed by Iran as it would be classed as martyrdom or whatever, with the virgins and everything that death in jihad comes with.
It's great you have an opinion, no matter how clueless.Go and read what you just wrote.
Martyrdom, jihad. Jesus.
Your starter for 10 : which country had a democratically elected Govt. overthrown by a CIA sponsored coup and was invaded by Saddam Hussein during a 10-year war where he used WMDs and weapons supplied by a range of western governments ?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But other governments don't want their citizens to die. Iran couldn't give a flying fk. The Iran / Iraq war taught us that. They were quite happy to fight a war of attrition.
You really know fk. The Iran / Iraq war taught us that. They were quite happy to fight a war of attrition. k all about this.Iraq invaded Iran, with extensive financial support from its Sunni neighbours and extensive material support from the West. Even when Saddam was using chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers.
Perhaps you should stick to posting maps of Narnia.
Countdown said:
So basically a total and complete surrender from Hamas?
Because then Israel will genuinely try to make peace, stop building settlements, stop building checkpoints, and stop "targeted assassinations"
Count,Because then Israel will genuinely try to make peace, stop building settlements, stop building checkpoints, and stop "targeted assassinations"
Hamas are a terrorist group, or had you forgot?
A surrender will be fine with everyone and their mother.
Phil
Countdown said:
Fatah has accepted Israel's right to exist. From reading somewhere I think even Hamas know that Israel isn't going to go away any time soon. Most of the countries around Israel have also made peace or have been willing to enter into peace negotiations.
To be honest I think it's a handy fallback excuse for Israel to avoid making any meaningless concessions. And, if you're referring to Iran, they want nuclear weapons for the same reason Israel has them. And they're as likely to use them as Israel is.
Count,To be honest I think it's a handy fallback excuse for Israel to avoid making any meaningless concessions. And, if you're referring to Iran, they want nuclear weapons for the same reason Israel has them. And they're as likely to use them as Israel is.
...but I thought Iran wanted nuclear energy?
Phil
Transmitter Man said:
Count,
Hamas are a terrorist group, or had you forgot?
A surrender will be fine with everyone and their mother.
Phil
It wouldn't be fine for the people who live in Gaza and the West Bank. They know what Israeli intentions are with regards to the Occupied Territories and know that , the way things are at the moment, talks won't get anywhere.Hamas are a terrorist group, or had you forgot?
A surrender will be fine with everyone and their mother.
Phil
Grumfutock said:
I am not saying that being more human and hugging the other side is a bad idea, I am saying it will never happen in a war. That is reality, what you are saying is some whacky hippie crap with not one atom in reality.
Oh and I know the reasons for WW2 and it wasn't because we "negotiated" a peace.
Actually GF you're somewhat wrong there.Oh and I know the reasons for WW2 and it wasn't because we "negotiated" a peace.
During the current Syrian conflict not only has Israeli doctors & nurses been treating Syrian soldier, from both side of the conflict in Jordanian hospitals in Amman but they have also treated both soldier & civilians inside Israel with the help of the UN forces.
...but of course the BBC would not tell us that now would it?
We can't have aunty offering an unbiased news service now can we.
Phil
Silent1 said:
IMHO, let Iran have nukes, they wont use them, TBH despite being a bit mental they're not that stupid that they'd turn their country into a glass carpark.
I'm not so sure about that...Certainly, 5 years ago i would say 100% they would use tactical nukes no question...
As for hamas, 1,000,000% they would nuke Israel within seconds of getting a nuke.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff