Discussion
Mr Snap said:
Much better! An attempt at marshalling facts and rebutting an argument. It's a bit like seeing your kiddie take it's first steps…
The problem is that it's rather hard to accept your argument when you read what you said below. Silent one says "let them have nukes, they won't use them". You respond,"Iran is controlled by a bunch of Mullah's, some of who[m] would happily launch global jihad etc" (Sorry about the my bold and changing who to whom).
Silent 1 said Iran wouldn't launch nuclear war. Your response was not to say "They're a bunch of nutters but they won't launch nuclear war" - on the contrary, you disagreed with him vehemently and said they would "happily launch global jihad". Now the expression 'launch global jihad' does expressly not exclude the possibility of nuclear war - and at no point in your response do you say nuclear war is excluded. The reader, therefore, is lead to assume you meant nuclear war was a distinct possibility in your mind.
Now, you may truly think that Iran won't launch nuclear weapons but you didn't exclude the possibility in your answer and therefore one was lead to assume you think Iran might use nuclear weapons. And, because you were, in the first place, strongly disagreeing with a statement that did most definitely exclude the possibility of Iran using nuclear weapons, it added further weight to the conclusion that you actually did believe Iran would launch nuclear weapons.
The answer to this is that, once again, your English has let you down - either because you expressed yourself inexactly or the logic underlying your argument was lacking. Whichever, you didn't actually say what you seem to think you said. As my old maths teacher used to say, "You think you know, but you don't know". This leaves me in an awkward position. Arguing with someone who a) doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and b) doesn't have a clue how he's saying it, is, logically speaking, somewhat fruitless.
One step forward and two back, I'm afraid, Mrr T.
Mr Snap is at it again a huge post with lots of insults. Lots of claims of victory.The problem is that it's rather hard to accept your argument when you read what you said below. Silent one says "let them have nukes, they won't use them". You respond,"Iran is controlled by a bunch of Mullah's, some of who[m] would happily launch global jihad etc" (Sorry about the my bold and changing who to whom).
Silent 1 said Iran wouldn't launch nuclear war. Your response was not to say "They're a bunch of nutters but they won't launch nuclear war" - on the contrary, you disagreed with him vehemently and said they would "happily launch global jihad". Now the expression 'launch global jihad' does expressly not exclude the possibility of nuclear war - and at no point in your response do you say nuclear war is excluded. The reader, therefore, is lead to assume you meant nuclear war was a distinct possibility in your mind.
Now, you may truly think that Iran won't launch nuclear weapons but you didn't exclude the possibility in your answer and therefore one was lead to assume you think Iran might use nuclear weapons. And, because you were, in the first place, strongly disagreeing with a statement that did most definitely exclude the possibility of Iran using nuclear weapons, it added further weight to the conclusion that you actually did believe Iran would launch nuclear weapons.
The answer to this is that, once again, your English has let you down - either because you expressed yourself inexactly or the logic underlying your argument was lacking. Whichever, you didn't actually say what you seem to think you said. As my old maths teacher used to say, "You think you know, but you don't know". This leaves me in an awkward position. Arguing with someone who a) doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and b) doesn't have a clue how he's saying it, is, logically speaking, somewhat fruitless.
One step forward and two back, I'm afraid, Mrr T.
Mrr T said:
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.
You do realise Iran is controlled by a bunch of Mullahs some of who would happily launch global jihad and forcible conversion of all “kaffiers” to the true belief.What’s funny is the argument that because I did not specifically say Iran would not launch nuclear weapons I must have meant to say it would.
Yet again a false flag argument.
So do you agree with Silent1 and we should give nuclear weapons to Iran?
Mr Snap said:
On a side note, were you aware of this: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/us-iran-n...
Apparently, Baroness Ashston has played an absolute blinder and is being lauded around the world for her diplomatic skills. Peter Oborne of the DT recently published an apology about what he's said about her in the past. This is the woman whom UKIP continues to describe as a pointless nonentity. In reality, she may have saved the world from nuclear war.
Not sure why you included this in your post. Did I mention Baroness Ashford anywhere in my post.Apparently, Baroness Ashston has played an absolute blinder and is being lauded around the world for her diplomatic skills. Peter Oborne of the DT recently published an apology about what he's said about her in the past. This is the woman whom UKIP continues to describe as a pointless nonentity. In reality, she may have saved the world from nuclear war.
Edited by Mrr T on Sunday 27th July 15:40
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Countdown was insisting (and perhaps still is)that Palestine existed as an independent country prior to 1948. His proof of the was because he'd seen the word Palestine on a map. Hence my posting a map of Nania.
Whatever colour the map was, whatever the name of that patch of land, people were there pre-48, Christians, Jews, Muslims.It is the conceited effort to crush or expel some sections of that population that has been the problem for the last (nigh on) seventy years.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
indeed,but a large amount of the current palestinian population has no connection at all .1967 census of the west bank only 10% of the population (48,000) had fled from pre 48 mandate palestine ,the rest were jordanians or recent immigrants ,who became palestinians in 67.to be classed as a palestinian refugee you had to have lived in mandate palestine for a whole 2 years according to the UN and bear in mind once the jews populated the land there was massive immigration into the west bank and gaza due to the economic vibrancy of the israelis.You have hundreds of arab sources admitting all this time and time and time again.
The problem is it is impossible to determine who and how many of those who were genuinely from that land and had been there for centuries are.
as to repeated efforts to crush blaj blah blah,seems to me its the palestinians who repeatedly turned down peace proposals ,and when given the chnace to prove they are willing to make peace ..the withdrawal from gaza being the most recent obvious one where they make their intent clear.
on top of that ,after 1967 israel controlled a massive area,parts of lebanon ,eypgt ,jordan and literally gave up of huge chunks of land for peace,the only time in history a nation victorious in war has instantly given up won territories ,again odd behaviour for someone so intent on the stuff you mention.
I am guessing the map you refer to is the 4 map thing ? Very effective propaganda tool and a total lie/myth,happy to go into detail if you want.
but anyway dont know if this has been posted ,if not its worth look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY
franki68 said:
on top of that ,after 1967 israel controlled a massive area,parts of lebanon ,eypgt ,jordan and literally gave up of huge chunks of land for peace,the only time in history a nation victorious in war has instantly given up won territories ,again odd behaviour for someone so intent on the stuff you mention.
My understanding was that Israel occupied and controlled the Sinai and the Golan heights after 1967. Israel maintained control of the Sinai even after 1973. In fact it was only after the US sponsored Camp David peace treaty in 78-79 that Israel relinquished control of the Sinai. [My guess is that the US couldn't afford to have it's two biggest allies at odds with each other and so put a fair amount of pressure on them both to sign].Israel still occupies the Golan Heights (and Settlers have moved in to avoid it being easy for the Israeli Govt to relinquish). Assad stated numerous times that he was happy to sign a peace treaty with Israel if the Golan Heights were returned but Israel hasn't because (a) Syria isn't a US ally and (b)Israel doesn't need to make peace with the Syrians due to the massive imbalance in military strength.
I'm not aware of any land in Lebanon and Jordan that Israel gave up as part of a land-for-peace swap. Perhaps you could show me when this happened?
Countdown said:
My understanding was that Israel occupied and controlled the Sinai and the Golan heights after 1967. Israel maintained control of the Sinai even after 1973. In fact it was only after the US sponsored Camp David peace treaty in 78-79 that Israel relinquished control of the Sinai. [My guess is that the US couldn't afford to have it's two biggest allies at odds with each other and so put a fair amount of pressure on them both to sign].
Israel still occupies the Golan Heights (and Settlers have moved in to avoid it being easy for the Israeli Govt to relinquish). Assad stated numerous times that he was happy to sign a peace treaty with Israel if the Golan Heights were returned but Israel hasn't because (a) Syria isn't a US ally and (b)Israel doesn't need to make peace with the Syrians due to the massive imbalance in military strength.
I'm not aware of any land in Lebanon and Jordan that Israel gave up as part of a land-for-peace swap. Perhaps you could show me when this happened?
israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War. A ceasefire was signed on 11 June 1967 and the Golan Heights came under Israeli military administration. Syria rejected UNSC Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967, which called for the return of Israeli-occupied State territories in exchange for peaceful relations. Israel had accepted Resolution 242 in a speech to the Security Council on 1 May 1968. In March 1972, Syria "conditionally" accepted Resolution 242, and in May 1972, the Agreement on Disengagement between Israel and Syria was signed.Israel still occupies the Golan Heights (and Settlers have moved in to avoid it being easy for the Israeli Govt to relinquish). Assad stated numerous times that he was happy to sign a peace treaty with Israel if the Golan Heights were returned but Israel hasn't because (a) Syria isn't a US ally and (b)Israel doesn't need to make peace with the Syrians due to the massive imbalance in military strength.
I'm not aware of any land in Lebanon and Jordan that Israel gave up as part of a land-for-peace swap. Perhaps you could show me when this happened?
In the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Syria attempted to recapture the Golan Heights militarily, but the attempt was unsuccessful. Israel and Syria signed a ceasefire agreement in 1974 that left almost all the Heights under Israeli control, while returning a narrow demilitarized zone to Syrian control. A United Nations observation force was established in 1974 as a buffer between the sides.
lebanon-1982 lebabon war.
In 1983, the United States brokered the May 17 Agreement, a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon in all but name. The agreement called for a staged Israeli withdrawal over the next eight to twelve weeks and the establishment of a "security zone" to be patrolled by the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon,[40] but was conditional on Syrian withdrawal as well. In August 1983, as Israel withdrew from the areas southeast of Beirut to the Awali River, Lebanese factions clashed for control of the freed territory.
In February 1984, the Lebanese Army collapsed, with many units forming their own militias. The National Assembly of Lebanon, under pressure from Syria and Muslim militias, cancelled the May 17 Agreement on 5 March 1984.
On 15 January 1985, Israel adopted a phased withdrawal plan, finally retreating to the Litani River to form the 4–12 kilometer (2.5–9 mi) deep Israeli Security Zone while using the native South Lebanese Army militia to help control it,etc etc.
Thanks for that
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Assad-Peace-for-G...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/may/24/israe...
You also mentioned it occupied Jordan and gave up "Land for peace"?
franki68 said:
israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War. A ceasefire was signed on 11 June 1967 and the Golan Heights came under Israeli military administration. Syria rejected UNSC Resolution 242 of 22 November 1967, which called for the return of Israeli-occupied State territories in exchange for peaceful relations. Israel had accepted Resolution 242 in a speech to the Security Council on 1 May 1968. In March 1972, Syria "conditionally" accepted Resolution 242, and in May 1972, the Agreement on Disengagement between Israel and Syria was signed.
In the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Syria attempted to recapture the Golan Heights militarily, but the attempt was unsuccessful. Israel and Syria signed a ceasefire agreement in 1974 that left almost all the Heights under Israeli control, while returning a narrow demilitarized zone to Syrian control. A United Nations observation force was established in 1974 as a buffer between the sides.
Apologies if I'm missing something but I don't see (in the above situation) where Israel has given up any land for peace.In the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Syria attempted to recapture the Golan Heights militarily, but the attempt was unsuccessful. Israel and Syria signed a ceasefire agreement in 1974 that left almost all the Heights under Israeli control, while returning a narrow demilitarized zone to Syrian control. A United Nations observation force was established in 1974 as a buffer between the sides.
http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Assad-Peace-for-G...
franki68 said:
lebanon-1982 lebabon war.
In 1983, the United States brokered the May 17 Agreement, a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon in all but name. The agreement called for a staged Israeli withdrawal over the next eight to twelve weeks and the establishment of a "security zone" to be patrolled by the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon,[40] but was conditional on Syrian withdrawal as well. In August 1983, as Israel withdrew from the areas southeast of Beirut to the Awali River, Lebanese factions clashed for control of the freed territory.
In February 1984, the Lebanese Army collapsed, with many units forming their own militias. The National Assembly of Lebanon, under pressure from Syria and Muslim militias, cancelled the May 17 Agreement on 5 March 1984.
On 15 January 1985, Israel adopted a phased withdrawal plan, finally retreating to the Litani River to form the 4–12 kilometer (2.5–9 mi) deep Israeli Security Zone while using the native South Lebanese Army militia to help control it,etc etc.
I think if you follow Israel's involvement in Lebanon, from 1982 up to 2000, it didn't give up "land" for "peace". It tried to maintain control, firstly through its own military and then later via its SLA proxies. It was, effectively, pushed out of Lebanon by Hezbollah. In 1983, the United States brokered the May 17 Agreement, a peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon in all but name. The agreement called for a staged Israeli withdrawal over the next eight to twelve weeks and the establishment of a "security zone" to be patrolled by the Lebanese army in southern Lebanon,[40] but was conditional on Syrian withdrawal as well. In August 1983, as Israel withdrew from the areas southeast of Beirut to the Awali River, Lebanese factions clashed for control of the freed territory.
In February 1984, the Lebanese Army collapsed, with many units forming their own militias. The National Assembly of Lebanon, under pressure from Syria and Muslim militias, cancelled the May 17 Agreement on 5 March 1984.
On 15 January 1985, Israel adopted a phased withdrawal plan, finally retreating to the Litani River to form the 4–12 kilometer (2.5–9 mi) deep Israeli Security Zone while using the native South Lebanese Army militia to help control it,etc etc.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/may/24/israe...
You also mentioned it occupied Jordan and gave up "Land for peace"?
Mrr T said:
Mr Snap said:
Much better! An attempt at marshalling facts and rebutting an argument. It's a bit like seeing your kiddie take it's first steps…
The problem is that it's rather hard to accept your argument when you read what you said below. Silent one says "let them have nukes, they won't use them". You respond,"Iran is controlled by a bunch of Mullah's, some of who[m] would happily launch global jihad etc" (Sorry about the my bold and changing who to whom).
Silent 1 said Iran wouldn't launch nuclear war. Your response was not to say "They're a bunch of nutters but they won't launch nuclear war" - on the contrary, you disagreed with him vehemently and said they would "happily launch global jihad". Now the expression 'launch global jihad' does expressly not exclude the possibility of nuclear war - and at no point in your response do you say nuclear war is excluded. The reader, therefore, is lead to assume you meant nuclear war was a distinct possibility in your mind.
Now, you may truly think that Iran won't launch nuclear weapons but you didn't exclude the possibility in your answer and therefore one was lead to assume you think Iran might use nuclear weapons. And, because you were, in the first place, strongly disagreeing with a statement that did most definitely exclude the possibility of Iran using nuclear weapons, it added further weight to the conclusion that you actually did believe Iran would launch nuclear weapons.
The answer to this is that, once again, your English has let you down - either because you expressed yourself inexactly or the logic underlying your argument was lacking. Whichever, you didn't actually say what you seem to think you said. As my old maths teacher used to say, "You think you know, but you don't know". This leaves me in an awkward position. Arguing with someone who a) doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and b) doesn't have a clue how he's saying it, is, logically speaking, somewhat fruitless.
One step forward and two back, I'm afraid, Mrr T.
Mr Snap is at it again a huge post with lots of insults. Lots of claims of victory.The problem is that it's rather hard to accept your argument when you read what you said below. Silent one says "let them have nukes, they won't use them". You respond,"Iran is controlled by a bunch of Mullah's, some of who[m] would happily launch global jihad etc" (Sorry about the my bold and changing who to whom).
Silent 1 said Iran wouldn't launch nuclear war. Your response was not to say "They're a bunch of nutters but they won't launch nuclear war" - on the contrary, you disagreed with him vehemently and said they would "happily launch global jihad". Now the expression 'launch global jihad' does expressly not exclude the possibility of nuclear war - and at no point in your response do you say nuclear war is excluded. The reader, therefore, is lead to assume you meant nuclear war was a distinct possibility in your mind.
Now, you may truly think that Iran won't launch nuclear weapons but you didn't exclude the possibility in your answer and therefore one was lead to assume you think Iran might use nuclear weapons. And, because you were, in the first place, strongly disagreeing with a statement that did most definitely exclude the possibility of Iran using nuclear weapons, it added further weight to the conclusion that you actually did believe Iran would launch nuclear weapons.
The answer to this is that, once again, your English has let you down - either because you expressed yourself inexactly or the logic underlying your argument was lacking. Whichever, you didn't actually say what you seem to think you said. As my old maths teacher used to say, "You think you know, but you don't know". This leaves me in an awkward position. Arguing with someone who a) doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and b) doesn't have a clue how he's saying it, is, logically speaking, somewhat fruitless.
One step forward and two back, I'm afraid, Mrr T.
Mrr T said:
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.
You do realise Iran is controlled by a bunch of Mullahs some of who would happily launch global jihad and forcible conversion of all “kaffiers” to the true belief.What’s funny is the argument that because I did not specifically say Iran would not launch nuclear weapons I must have meant to say it would.
Yet again a false flag argument.
So do you agree with Silent1 and we should give nuclear weapons to Iran?
Mr Snap said:
On a side note, were you aware of this: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/us-iran-n...
Apparently, Baroness Ashston has played an absolute blinder and is being lauded around the world for her diplomatic skills. Peter Oborne of the DT recently published an apology about what he's said about her in the past. This is the woman whom UKIP continues to describe as a pointless nonentity. In reality, she may have saved the world from nuclear war.
Not sure why you included this in your post. Did I mention Baroness Ashford anywhere in my post.Apparently, Baroness Ashston has played an absolute blinder and is being lauded around the world for her diplomatic skills. Peter Oborne of the DT recently published an apology about what he's said about her in the past. This is the woman whom UKIP continues to describe as a pointless nonentity. In reality, she may have saved the world from nuclear war.
Edited by Mrr T on Sunday 27th July 15:40
Did I state that I agreed with Silent 1? Now be careful how you answer this, because if you say it appeared that I did appear to agree with him, you'll utterly undermine your own argument above.
I've never claimed a victory, but I've repeatedly said that you seem unable to pursue a debate logically by marshalling arguments and evidence. You're definitely improving but you're still not reaching your full potential (I hope). If you compare it to a football match your team haven't lost, they just didn't bother to get on the bus to the match...
I mentioned Baroness ASHTON because she has been conducting fruitful negotiations with the Iranians. These negotiations may preclude the possibility on nuclear war. This tends to suggest that, despite the Iranian constitution being somewhat less democratic than ours, it is possible to hold complex, productive, talks with them. You can't hold productive talks with a bunch of medieval nutters. It also amuses me that, although she's a "non-elected undemocratic bureaucrat" (copyright UKIP), she's managing to do something that nobody else has succeeded in doing for 40 years i.e. hold productive talks with the Iranians. This is good, is it not? It seems that, sometimes, non-elected people can benefit society, too: A bit like the Iranian Guardian Council, who most certainly have a hand in these talks.
That's the nature of debate, it evolves and new information is introduced. But if you find this concept difficult to grasp, just ignore what I just said about Baroness ASHTON, I wouldn't wish to tax you excessively.
k me, dead heat in the Funny, people have attacked my comments abiut rockets despite blatantly not having a clue what its like and yet still not seen a response to the hamas demand that israel opens the Egypt bloackade and boarder, which they cannot do clearly. Maybe I missed a response but not noticed it. Just wondering why the un, arab league, eu, Egypt etc have all pointed out is impossible to link the two, as Israel cannot open another countries borders but people here endlessly ignore it....
Curious.
And for those who claim the rocket attacks are nothing, and people cannmove... I suggest you live there. Every major centre in the countrynis in range and the rockets fall day in qnd day out for years. The death rates are low as every building there has a bomb shelter in it by law. But I am certain people who hqve never exoerianced it or lived with tat for year after year know much better than I whats its like so thanks for letting me know, appreciated.
Now, Egypt anyone or is that requiring people to deminstrate their utter kack of understanding here?!
Curious.
And for those who claim the rocket attacks are nothing, and people cannmove... I suggest you live there. Every major centre in the countrynis in range and the rockets fall day in qnd day out for years. The death rates are low as every building there has a bomb shelter in it by law. But I am certain people who hqve never exoerianced it or lived with tat for year after year know much better than I whats its like so thanks for letting me know, appreciated.
Now, Egypt anyone or is that requiring people to deminstrate their utter kack of understanding here?!
Mr Snap said:
No, it's your lack of clarity that lead to my response. If you don't wish to be misunderstood, don't express yourself in ways that are open to misinterpretation.
I was very clear you chose to disagree with something I did not say.Mr Snap said:
Did I state that I agreed with Silent 1? Now be careful how you answer this, because if you say it appeared that I did appear to agree with him, you'll utterly undermine your own argument above.
I asked the question “do you support giving nuclear weapons to Iran?” and your answer is to ask me “Did I state that I agreed with Silent 1?”. Have you forgotten what you posted?
I know what you posted. Which is why I asked the question. Are you going to answer?
Mr Snap said:
I've never claimed a victory, but I've repeatedly said that you seem unable to pursue a debate logically by marshalling arguments and evidence. You're definitely improving but you're still not reaching your full potential (I hope). If you compare it to a football match your team haven't lost, they just didn't bother to get on the bus to the match....
Yawn.Mr Snap said:
I mentioned Baroness ASHTON because she has been conducting fruitful negotiations with the Iranians. These negotiations may preclude the possibility on nuclear war. This tends to suggest that, despite the Iranian constitution being somewhat less democratic than ours, it is possible to hold complex, productive, talks with them. You can't hold productive talks with a bunch of medieval nutters. It also amuses me that, although she's a "non-elected undemocratic bureaucrat" (copyright UKIP), she's managing to do something that nobody else has succeeded in doing for 40 years i.e. hold productive talks with the Iranians. This is good, is it not? It seems that, sometimes, non-elected people can benefit society, too: A bit like the Iranian Guardian Council, who most certainly have a hand in these talks.
That's the nature of debate, it evolves and new information is introduced. But if you find this concept difficult to grasp, just ignore what I just said about Baroness ASHTON, I wouldn't wish to tax you excessively.
I did not suggest you cannot negotiate with Iran. I suggested it was not a great idea to give them nuclear weapons.That's the nature of debate, it evolves and new information is introduced. But if you find this concept difficult to grasp, just ignore what I just said about Baroness ASHTON, I wouldn't wish to tax you excessively.
I really don't understand this "Hamas rockets haven't killed very many people so they don't really matter."
What a moronic thing to say. Try living with the fear they must engender, day after day, week after week, year after year. It must be akin to Chinese water torture, just the relentless fear. Psychologically it must take a terrible toll on those living with the continual threat.
I don't see it as a minor irritant at all. Whether it merits the response Israel have meted out is a separate debate.
What a moronic thing to say. Try living with the fear they must engender, day after day, week after week, year after year. It must be akin to Chinese water torture, just the relentless fear. Psychologically it must take a terrible toll on those living with the continual threat.
I don't see it as a minor irritant at all. Whether it merits the response Israel have meted out is a separate debate.
An interesting, heated, thread this. But really the whole answer/situation can be summed up very easily.
While there are two groups of people living next to each other, within which elements believe the other has no right to life and should be exterminated from the planet the killing will continue.
Neither side is right, and neither should be appeased. The world needs to crack down on the Israeli use of weapons wholly unsuitable for the area. And the world needs to recognise Hamas as the terrorists they are.
But this wont happen.
Not while two groups of people believe in different deity's in the sky.
All we can do, and all educated and rational people the world over can do, is try to alleviate the suffering caused by this........religious difference of opinion.
Simon
While there are two groups of people living next to each other, within which elements believe the other has no right to life and should be exterminated from the planet the killing will continue.
Neither side is right, and neither should be appeased. The world needs to crack down on the Israeli use of weapons wholly unsuitable for the area. And the world needs to recognise Hamas as the terrorists they are.
But this wont happen.
Not while two groups of people believe in different deity's in the sky.
All we can do, and all educated and rational people the world over can do, is try to alleviate the suffering caused by this........religious difference of opinion.
Simon
snowen250 said:
Not while two groups of people believe in different deity's in the sky.
All we can do, and all educated and rational people the world over can do, is try to alleviate the suffering caused by this........religious difference of opinion.
Do you believe most if not all Muslims support the Palestinian cause, for I do not believe all Jewish people approve of a lot that is going on. Religious difference or more than that?All we can do, and all educated and rational people the world over can do, is try to alleviate the suffering caused by this........religious difference of opinion.
Mermaid said:
snowen250 said:
Not while two groups of people believe in different deity's in the sky.
All we can do, and all educated and rational people the world over can do, is try to alleviate the suffering caused by this........religious difference of opinion.
Do you believe most if not all Muslims support the Palestinian cause, for I do not believe all Jewish people approve of a lot that is going on. Religious difference or more than that?All we can do, and all educated and rational people the world over can do, is try to alleviate the suffering caused by this........religious difference of opinion.
snowen250 said:
The world needs to crack down on the Israeli use of weapons wholly unsuitable for the area. And the world needs to recognise Hamas as the terrorists they are.
But that isn't even handed - Israel would be entirely happy with a situation in which the representatives of the Palestinian people pledge to use only political means to the end of a viable state. Israel can just say 'no' and sit tight.snowen250 said:
I believe most Muslims, like most rational human beings, believe the citizens of Gaza have a right to a decent chance of life. Currently something being denied by Israel. I do not believe the majority of Muslims support the actions of Hamas to achieve these aims.
Problem is that both Jews and Muslims feel under threat by rising Islamaphobia and anti semitism.This fear causes even moderates,in both camps,to look inwards,becomes a vicious cycle.
Let's be honest,the West,especially the USA,has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East for many years,often(mainly) for self interest,oil,power of influence,etc.
No doubt some of their motives may have been well meaning, but it's usually been a cock up.
Majority of citizens have been oppressed by their leaders,and taking their religion very seriously,accept the teachings of their religious leaders,that this life is but a journey to another more holy place.
Therefore taking a view of life that is quite alien to is,in the West.
I have spoken to several Iranians,living in the UK, over the past few years.
Nicer more reasonable people you would not meet.
They are as upset as anyone by the direction that their religious leaders have taken their country.
But,of course,they are educated and "westernised" and,as such,may not represent the majority.
Edited by avinalarf on Sunday 27th July 21:18
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I really don't understand this "Hamas rockets haven't killed very many people so they don't really matter."
That's presumably because you're completely out of step with global opinion.Most of the world has noticed that Israel has fenced its Palestinian ethnic group into a long, thin compound and is killing them with latest high tech weaponry. You might not be bothered by that, but many people are somewhat concerned.
Or to put it another way, the school bully is beating up the little guys in the playground. They are doing what they can to fight back, but it doesn't amount to much. meanwhile the school bully is running home and telling his parents the little guys are picking on him.
Qwert1e said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I really don't understand this "Hamas rockets haven't killed very many people so they don't really matter."
That's presumably because you're completely out of step with global opinion.Most of the world has noticed that Israel has fenced its Palestinian ethnic group into a long, thin compound and is killing them with latest high tech weaponry. You might not be bothered by that, but many people are somewhat concerned.
Or to put it another way, the school bully is beating up the little guys in the playground. They are doing what they can to fight back, but it doesn't amount to much. meanwhile the school bully is running home and telling his parents the little guys are picking on him.
Total horlicks if the palestinians don't want to be shelled stop firing rockets, how hard concept is that?
If the idf wanted to wipe out Palestinians, just how many seconds would it take them?
They're trying fing hard not to kill people, hampered by hams not giving a toss about civilians.
If the idf wanted to wipe out Palestinians, just how many seconds would it take them?
They're trying fing hard not to kill people, hampered by hams not giving a toss about civilians.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff