Discussion
Octoposse said:
Mrr T said:
Would they fire if Hamas where not lobbing missiles into Israel and now it looks as if they where building tunnels into Israel. Do you think the tunnels where for some sort of adventure ride or to give suicide bombers access to Israel.
A government first job is to protect its population. That may involves deliberately killing civilian. .
Where to start . . . . A government first job is to protect its population. That may involves deliberately killing civilian. .
Well: "A government's first job is to protect its population". Quit so, and that is exactly what Hamas is seeking to do. The alternative to resistance appears consigning its population, present and future, to scratching a living in a bantustan whose borders (land, sea and air) are controlled by countries hostile to its wellbeing.
"and now it looks as if they where building tunnels into Israel". Looks like it. So one side in this conflict has a navy, nuclear weapons, tanks, armoured bulldozers, white phosperous munitions, precision guided weapons, artillery and jet fighters . . . and the other side have buckets and spades.
The side that has all the kit clearly wants to live in peace, but not apparently make peace as that will involve undoubtedly extremely painful concessions. Where's the incentive so to do at the moment when the world tolerates letting all that kit loose on women and children, and a benevolent Uncle Sam rushes you more ammo when you start to run low?
This may stir up a hornet's nest, as if another one was needed, but thoughts on this ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/channel-4-news/bri...
I really can't make up my mind what i think the British position should be on this (not my position, but the British government's) - I have friends with family members who've gone over for this very purpose btw
There is an argument that such people will not pose a threat to Britain when they return (assuming they do return) but that's not the only reason to have a problem with such individuals
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/channel-4-news/bri...
I really can't make up my mind what i think the British position should be on this (not my position, but the British government's) - I have friends with family members who've gone over for this very purpose btw
There is an argument that such people will not pose a threat to Britain when they return (assuming they do return) but that's not the only reason to have a problem with such individuals
jonby said:
There;s an awful lot in there that I agree with, at least to a point. But the idea that Hamas' main priority is protecting it's population is laughable. As for borders, I have no problem empathising enormously with immense frustration (an extreme understatement) that the palestinians must have with the idea of borders controlled by Israel, with Israel armed and Gaza demilitarised. I'm not sure in that position I could ever accept such a situation. Just as an Israeli could never willingly accept an armed Hamas government. The fact remains however that the border controls get tighter almost always as a result of Hamas abusing them by bringing in weapons under the cover of food, medical supplies or other aid. My point as ever being, that it's rarely that clear cut
you do realise that Israel actually provided small arms to the palestinian authority for them to police their own area's don't you?Anybody that thinks Hamas care two hoots about the civilian population is seriously deluded, they just use them as pawns and cannon fodder to garner more support from the gullible.
of the 1,200 or so that have died, just how many actually are NOT Hamas fighters (or are we to believe that no Hamas fighters have been killed?) and how do we know just how many have been killed by Hamas?
not trying to excuse the IDF for some mistakes, but let's at least understand the reality of the situation.
Jimbeaux said:
Guam said:
Jimbeaux said:
Damn you are easy! As for the British not wanting me on their PH site, you should have PH ban me. 
He really is of no concern to me. Thanks though! Rather than pretending you've won, why not explain why my answer to your question was inadequate?
This is how the original conversation went.
Jimbeaux said:
Mr Snap said:
Jimbeaux said:
Yep, been a corrupting influence on PH for about 10 years. So pained that I do not meet your standards for being above contempt; not sure how I will live with myself. Which part was "bigoted"? Would hate to miss that. That said, what army intenet on killing as many civilians as possible would drop any warning leaflets?? Wake up please. Sarcasm aside from both parties, we probably would get on in person TBH.
Ah, the curtain gets pulled aside a little.Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 30th July 15:10
Lots of armies have dropped leaflets cynically warning civilians to move.
The Nazis did it over London and the Allies responded in kind. And I'm sure you're already aware that the US leaflets, advising Japanese to leave Hiroshima, were dropped only three or four days after the bomb itself...
You know no history and this means you can be taken to pieces if you want to pick historical arguments. I'd drop that tack if I was you.
Sarcasm aside, we most certainly wouldn't.
You got answers and for some reason you didn't like them. In a debate, it's your job to produce counter arguments. You've failed to do that so, leaving aside the high fives from our home grown reactionaries, why not show us your counter proofs. Prove that the examples I gave you are completely unfounded.
Calling people names is fun, I grant you, but possession of cold hard facts is better and you've failed to provide a single answer. Not one.
Oh, and I wouldn't dream of getting you banned from this site. You may be wrong on most things but for entertainment value your contributions (and when they suddenly stop) are compulsive viewing. It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at your unstinting support for Romney in 2012. (Guam, our self-appointed expert on voting patterns, was, if I recall correctly, similarly convinced he was going to win).
Meanwhile, back in Washington...
"In what amounted to the strongest and most explicit condemnation of Israel since the conflict began, US president Barack Obama’s press secretary said the attack on the school was “totally unacceptable” and “totally indefensible”.
He also said the administration was “urging” Israel to do more to avoid civilian deaths and said US officials were taking issue with “specific military decisions” by Jerusalem.
“The shelling of a UN facility, that is housing innocent civilian who are fleeing violence, is totally unacceptable and totally indefensible,” Josh Earnest said.
“It is clear that we need our allies in Israel to do more to live up to the high standards they have set themselves.”
In the aftermath of the shelling of the school, US officials initially declined to apportion blame for the shelling - even though the UN said all of the evidence pointed to Israel.
On Thursday, after Israel conceded it was operating the area and said it was possible that “stray Israeli fire” hit the school, the White House shifted stance.
“It does not appear there is a lot of doubt about whose artillery was involved in this incident,” Earnest said."
The Guardian 45 mins ago.
"In what amounted to the strongest and most explicit condemnation of Israel since the conflict began, US president Barack Obama’s press secretary said the attack on the school was “totally unacceptable” and “totally indefensible”.
He also said the administration was “urging” Israel to do more to avoid civilian deaths and said US officials were taking issue with “specific military decisions” by Jerusalem.
“The shelling of a UN facility, that is housing innocent civilian who are fleeing violence, is totally unacceptable and totally indefensible,” Josh Earnest said.
“It is clear that we need our allies in Israel to do more to live up to the high standards they have set themselves.”
In the aftermath of the shelling of the school, US officials initially declined to apportion blame for the shelling - even though the UN said all of the evidence pointed to Israel.
On Thursday, after Israel conceded it was operating the area and said it was possible that “stray Israeli fire” hit the school, the White House shifted stance.
“It does not appear there is a lot of doubt about whose artillery was involved in this incident,” Earnest said."
The Guardian 45 mins ago.
jonby said:
This may stir up a hornet's nest, as if another one was needed, but thoughts on this ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/channel-4-news/bri...
Sounds reasonable. I understand the argument that young British people should be steered away from extremism and fighting in Syria or for ISIS, especially since some of those terrorists are now making threats to bring their Jihad back to Britain once they're done, but I don't see an issue with people fighting for a legitimate force like the IDF. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/channel-4-news/bri...
Mr Snap said:
Jimbeaux said:
Guam said:
Jimbeaux said:
Damn you are easy! As for the British not wanting me on their PH site, you should have PH ban me. He really is of no concern to me. Thanks though! Rather than pretending you've won, why not explain why my answer to your question was inadequate?
This is how the original conversation went.
Jimbeaux said:
Mr Snap said:
Jimbeaux said:
Yep, been a corrupting influence on PH for about 10 years. So pained that I do not meet your standards for being above contempt; not sure how I will live with myself. Which part was "bigoted"? Would hate to miss that. That said, what army intenet on killing as many civilians as possible would drop any warning leaflets?? Wake up please. Sarcasm aside from both parties, we probably would get on in person TBH.
Ah, the curtain gets pulled aside a little.Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 30th July 15:10
Lots of armies have dropped leaflets cynically warning civilians to move.
The Nazis did it over London and the Allies responded in kind. And I'm sure you're already aware that the US leaflets, advising Japanese to leave Hiroshima, were dropped only three or four days after the bomb itself...
You know no history and this means you can be taken to pieces if you want to pick historical arguments. I'd drop that tack if I was you.
Sarcasm aside, we most certainly wouldn't.
You got answers and for some reason you didn't like them. In a debate, it's your job to produce counter arguments. You've failed to do that so, leaving aside the high fives from our home grown reactionaries, why not show us your counter proofs. Prove that the examples I gave you are completely unfounded.
Calling people names is fun, I grant you, but possession of cold hard facts is better and you've failed to provide a single answer. Not one.
Oh, and I wouldn't dream of getting you banned from this site. You may be wrong on most things but for entertainment value your contributions (and when they suddenly stop) are compulsive viewing. It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at your unstinting support for Romney in 2012. (Guam, our self-appointed expert on voting patterns, was, if I recall correctly, similarly convinced he was going to win).
Baryonyx said:
jonby said:
This may stir up a hornet's nest, as if another one was needed, but thoughts on this ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/channel-4-news/bri...
Sounds reasonable. I understand the argument that young British people should be steered away from extremism and fighting in Syria or for ISIS, especially since some of those terrorists are now making threats to bring their Jihad back to Britain once they're done, but I don't see an issue with people fighting for a legitimate force like the IDF. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/channel-4-news/bri...
Jimbeaux said:
jonby said:
s1962a said:
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/07/idf-sniper-a...
If true, this guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a combat zone. What a loony.
could;t agree more. One would hope pretty much everyone would agree that (as you say, most importantly, if true) action be taken against someone like that- it goes way beyond being a loonyIf true, this guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a combat zone. What a loony.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jimbeaux said:
jonby said:
s1962a said:
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/07/idf-sniper-a...
If true, this guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a combat zone. What a loony.
could;t agree more. One would hope pretty much everyone would agree that (as you say, most importantly, if true) action be taken against someone like that- it goes way beyond being a loonyIf true, this guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a combat zone. What a loony.
Baryonyx said:
jonby said:
This may stir up a hornet's nest, as if another one was needed, but thoughts on this ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/channel-4-news/bri...
Sounds reasonable. I understand the argument that young British people should be steered away from extremism and fighting in Syria or for ISIS, especially since some of those terrorists are now making threats to bring their Jihad back to Britain once they're done, but I don't see an issue with people fighting for a legitimate force like the IDF. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/channel-4-news/bri...
Zeeky said:
It should be unlawful for any British citizen to fight with any armed forces other than our own.
Back in the 70s, some of our most senior politicians had fought in the Spanish civil war. And are you aware of the many foreign servicemen who joined the British army and air force in the 2nd world war. A typically confused comment Twig. It is not in the interests of the UK for its citizens to choose on an individual basis which armed forces they will serve in.
It is not in the UK's interest to allow our citizens to fight in the Middle East other than as part of our Forces and even then we should be trying to keep out of that region.
It is not in the UK's interest to allow our citizens to fight in the Middle East other than as part of our Forces and even then we should be trying to keep out of that region.
Scuffers said:
of the 1,200 or so that have died, just how many actually are NOT Hamas fighters (or are we to believe that no Hamas fighters have been killed?) and how do we know just how many have been killed by Hamas?
not trying to excuse the IDF for some mistakes, but let's at least understand the reality of the situation.
Exactly what would the IDF have to do to make your support waiver even a tiny bit?not trying to excuse the IDF for some mistakes, but let's at least understand the reality of the situation.
"Some mistakes" and now saying Hamas might have done the shelling themselves.
Scuffers said:
you do realise that Israel actually provided small arms to the palestinian authority for them to police their own area's don't you?
For entirely self interested reasons. Israel has only one tactic - wack-a-mole, indifferent to collateral damage - and only one strategy: wack-a-mole until the Palestinians are so desparate they'll sign anything, and their leaders sufficiently corrupt they'll sign up to a string of bantustans in exchange for a billion dollars under the table and visas for Spain. Fatah looked promising candidates for a while.
Scuffers said:
Anybody that thinks Hamas care two hoots about the civilian population is seriously deluded, they just use them as pawns and cannon fodder to garner more support from the gullible.
Hamas' goal is a viable Palestinian state, in which the civilian population have a dignified and independent future.Scuffers said:
of the 1,200 or so that have died, just how many actually are NOT Hamas fighters (or are we to believe that no Hamas fighters have been killed?) and how do we know just how many have been killed by Hamas?
I'd estimate that the IDF are killing less than one armed fighter for every eight or ten civilian 'unfortunate accidents'.Scuffers said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jimbeaux said:
jonby said:
s1962a said:
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/07/idf-sniper-a...
If true, this guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a combat zone. What a loony.
could;t agree more. One would hope pretty much everyone would agree that (as you say, most importantly, if true) action be taken against someone like that- it goes way beyond being a loonyIf true, this guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a combat zone. What a loony.
Jimbeaux said:
Scuffers said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jimbeaux said:
jonby said:
s1962a said:
http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/07/idf-sniper-a...
If true, this guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a combat zone. What a loony.
could;t agree more. One would hope pretty much everyone would agree that (as you say, most importantly, if true) action be taken against someone like that- it goes way beyond being a loonyIf true, this guy shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a combat zone. What a loony.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Zeeky said:
It should be unlawful for any British citizen to fight with any armed forces other than our own.
Back in the 70s, some of our most senior politicians had fought in the Spanish civil war. And are you aware of the many foreign servicemen who joined the British army and air force in the 2nd world war. 1)A nation's official military / 2)Not one that the joiner's nation is at war with.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff