Israeli

[Hilts]

Jimbeaux said:

I answered you; unless you are speaking to Grum.

You're right, missed your post. Sorry.

[league67]

Jimbeaux said:

league67 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Scuffers said:

2 women and 1 child too...

They deliberatly executed a child? Lovely, aren't they?

Would it be better if they were 'collateral damage'?

Not for them but for priciple, very much so, yes.

Would that principle still be valid if more than 70% of casualties are 'collateral damage'?

If you launch an attack on military target, and you know that by launching that attack you'll inflict massive civilian loss of life and damage to the civilian infrastructure, is that still acceptable?

My question still stands; Why would Hamas admit, for the lack of better word, that 3 killed were commanders, why not say that they were civilians? Why say that they executed 18 (or 11 or whatever the number is) civilians, why not say they were killed by IDF? That would be much better PR.

[Jimbeaux]

Hilts said:

Jimbeaux said:

Hilts said:

Jimbeaux said:

They deliberatly executed a child? Lovely, aren't they?

How many children have the US/UK/Israel executed or killed if you prefer?

Executed? None. Aiming a gun at a child, one you have been "hired" to defend and deliberatly shooting him/her is a murder, an execution. Get it?

That's why I said executed/killed.

Numbers please.

Don't know, I am sure you do. I was speaking specifically of execution, ie: deliberate killings of a targeted human. In this case, by their own people. Typical dark age savagery and to be expected.

[Jimbeaux]

league67 said:

Jimbeaux said:

league67 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Scuffers said:

2 women and 1 child too...

They deliberatly executed a child? Lovely, aren't they?

Would it be better if they were 'collateral damage'?

Not for them but for priciple, very much so, yes.

Would that principle still be valid if more than 70% of casualties are 'collateral damage'?

If you launch an attack on military target, and you know that by launching that attack you'll inflict massive civilian loss of life and damage to the civilian infrastructure, is that still acceptable?

My question still stands; Why would Hamas admit, for the lack of better word, that 3 killed were commanders, why not say that they were civilians? Why say that they executed 18 (or 11 or whatever the number is) civilians, why not say they were killed by IDF? That would be much better PR.

Because they are making a point to the Palestinians and others who might betray them. They need no more good PR; they have figured out that no matter what they do, folks like you around the world will remain silent and continue to scream at the Zionists.

[Hilts]

Jimbeaux said:

Hilts said:

Jimbeaux said:

Hilts said:

Jimbeaux said:

They deliberatly executed a child? Lovely, aren't they?

How many children have the US/UK/Israel executed or killed if you prefer?

Executed? None. Aiming a gun at a child, one you have been "hired" to defend and deliberatly shooting him/her is a murder, an execution. Get it?

That's why I said executed/killed.

Numbers please.

Don't know,

Go on, have a rough guess.

To the nearest thousand.

[Hilts]

Jimbeaux said:

Hilts said:

Jimbeaux said:

They deliberatly executed a child? Lovely, aren't they?

How many children have the US/UK/Israel executed or killed if you prefer?

Executed? None. Aiming a gun at a child, one you have been "hired" to defend and deliberatly shooting him/her is a murder, an execution. Get it?

Haditha?

[league67]

Jimbeaux said:

league67 said:

Jimbeaux said:

league67 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Scuffers said:

2 women and 1 child too...

They deliberatly executed a child? Lovely, aren't they?

Would it be better if they were 'collateral damage'?

Not for them but for priciple, very much so, yes.

Would that principle still be valid if more than 70% of casualties are 'collateral damage'?

If you launch an attack on military target, and you know that by launching that attack you'll inflict massive civilian loss of life and damage to the civilian infrastructure, is that still acceptable?

My question still stands; Why would Hamas admit, for the lack of better word, that 3 killed were commanders, why not say that they were civilians? Why say that they executed 18 (or 11 or whatever the number is) civilians, why not say they were killed by IDF? That would be much better PR.

Because they are making a point to the Palestinians and others who might betray them. They need no more good PR; they have figured out that no matter what they do, folks like you around the world will remain silent and continue to scream at the Zionists.

I'm silent because I'm calling Hamas terrorists and murderous twunts? Interesting interpretation. Why admit demise of three commanders?

[zuby84]

Everything else aside, I do think that due to Israel's actions over the past month or so; "Zionism" is becoming engrained as a "dirty" word for more and more people - now almost synonymous with the word "terrorism." I definitely think that's a bit of progress in the eventual quest for peace in the region; people can finally start calling a spade a spade rather than tip-toeing around matters in case they are called anti-semetic.

Hamas are just as bad and I wouldn't like to live under their rule either, but Israel needs to be honest with the World what they are trying to do. At least Hamas has the courtesy to actually say what their real "mission statement" is. Israel will do no such thing as it's bad PR and the real victory for Israel over the last 60 years has been it's PR victory which has somehow allowed them to break International rule of law [as defined by the UN - not Fox News] decade after decade completely unchecked.

I also think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the main underlying and initial reasons as to why we get fkwit Islamic terrorists trying to bomb us in the West and why these terrorists hate the USA so much. It's also a very powerful terrorist recruiting tool and I don't really think this can be denied by any sane individual. Maybe we should ask Israel for compensation? :P

[TheRealFingers99]

Grumfutock said:

Having just read your input to the ISIS thread may I suggest you attend the EDL rally this weekend.

I'll be there, waving the flag



with my mate from the Black country

[Grumfutock]

And I will be attending a counter rally, celebrating diversity, today.

[Alpinestars]

Grumfutock said:

And I will be attending a counter rally, celebrating diversity, today.

Shame your version of diversity doesn't apply to Palestinians and embraces apartheid.

You're not just anti Islamic by any chance are you - such that you've no real interest in Palestine per se? Same question to Uncle Jim.

[Grumfutock]

Alpinestars said:

Grumfutock said:

And I will be attending a counter rally, celebrating diversity, today.

Shame your version of diversity doesn't apply to Palestinians and embraces apartheid.

You're not just anti Islamic by any chance are you - such that you've no real interest in Palestine per se? Same question to Uncle Jim.

Of course I am anti Islamic. Yes, Yes, totally. Well you know best. Do you even read the posts you quote?

Now you have decided that for me reward yourself with listening to some music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my7sxZ0KfHU

[Scuffers]

zuby84 said:

Everything else aside, I do think that due to Israel's actions over the past month or so; "Zionism" is becoming engrained as a "dirty" word for more and more people - now almost synonymous with the word "terrorism." I definitely think that's a bit of progress in the eventual quest for peace in the region; people can finally start calling a spade a spade rather than tip-toeing around matters in case they are called anti-semetic.

Hamas are just as bad and I wouldn't like to live under their rule either, but Israel needs to be honest with the World what they are trying to do. At least Hamas has the courtesy to actually say what their real "mission statement" is. Israel will do no such thing as it's bad PR and the real victory for Israel over the last 60 years has been it's PR victory which has somehow allowed them to break International rule of law [as defined by the UN - not Fox News] decade after decade completely unchecked.

I think the problem here is that you're falling down the usual route of tarring everybody with the same brush...

let me explain, all of the people in the Gaza strip are not Hamas, Likewise, not all Israelis are Zionists/settlers/etc. representing them as such, is not only simplifying the situation beyond belief, but also means it's then used as a justification for whatever side you happen to be on.

I am sure the everyday civilian in Jerusalem would be more than happy to live a quiet life with whoever next door, so long as it was a quiet life, (in much the same way you would like your neighbour to be sociable & quiet and not some drug-dealing nutter with a penchant to violence etc.)

I am sure most of the adult palestinians in Gaza feel the same, they just want to get on with their lives.

now, then we get to the less desirables, on one side with have the settlers, who have come from who knows where, and see it as their god-given right to requisition a bit of land no matter who was already living there, then basically intimidate them to either leave or have to live in fear, and this, (without any hesitation/reservation on my part) is wrong and should be dealt with by the Israeli authorities.

on the other hand you have Hamas (and their many splinter group mates), whose sole purpose in life it to annihilate Israel.

now, in the middle you have the normal people, who just want it to all end and go away.

Yes, Israel needs to do more to keep the settlers in check, it's like an open sore that's easy to scratch and apart from being a PITA, it;s an easy excuse for the nutjobs to use as an excuse.

all that said, there is ZERO justification to kill people, fire rockets indiscriminately, dig tunnels, execute people you don't like and basically condemn 1+M people to a pretty st exsistance.

But wait, I hear you say, what about the terrorist IDF?

look, get real, you really are doing yourself no favours painting the IDF as terrorists, yes, I am sure some have step way over the mark of what's acceptable for a professional army, (and you might want to consider just how many of them are reservists and probably really don't want to be there and may sometimes lack 100% disiplin in what they are doing).

Looking specifically at Gaza, the only solution is to stop the violence, and the only way that will happen is when Hamas and their fellow nutters stop.

we all know, the day they abandon the rockets/attacks/killings, will be the day the IDF stand down the reservists, and head back to barracks, and I am sure it would not take long to open the borders again.

now, whichever side you seem to be supporting, are you going to say this is NOT what you want to see happen?

the only real question is whose move is it? and the answer is Hamas.

the more we in the west go all sympathetic to their plight and keep throwing money at them, the longer this will go on, yes, this makes it extremely hard for the 'normal' guy in Gaza, but do you honestly think the aid/money going in now is actually helping him?

[Grumfutock]

Now your in trouble Scuffers. You have made the school boy error of using facts, rational thought, neutral debating and common sense.

I agree 100% with what you have written.

[Slaav]

I had originally hoped that I would find some reasonably strong debating on this thread! I genuinely thought that there were enough bright and sharp minds to 'argue' sensibly and give me both sides of the argument and help educate me personally as pretty much everyone can look at things subjectively rather than the often better objective position I would have preferred.

I was hoping for a better understanding of the current conflict as well as the history of the overall situation. I did modern history at O Level and touched on this situation. I was lucky enough to do a school project on Israel which encompassed more history and the Jewish faith. Sadly most has been forgotten, hence having read every post in this thread as well as pretty much every link and many other stories, articles and editorials.

I am still (if not even more) at a loss as to how there will ever be peace unless Israel withdraws from most of its illegal settlements, regardless of how many generations are living in them, relaxes (if not completely removes) it's blockades, allows Palestinians equal (or more than they have now) rights and allows the UN to step in to try and maintain peace?

I cannot see a way of finding peace unless Hamas is neutered (from a terrorist PoV) by the World community, especially the neighbouring Arab States.

Sadly, one cannot happen without the other!

I was lucky enough to hear F W De Klerk talking about secret meetings with Mandela and the ANC as peace was the only desired outcome! Both leaders lied to their parties and supporters and many meetings were held in secret. It can be done but requires will and cooperation ON BOTH SIDES. I fear that there is no single strong leader in Palestine and possibly the World community to push this from the Palestinian side. There are strong enough leaders on the Israeli side and I include USA and possibly the UN in this but sadly, there simply doesn't appear to be the Will.... Sadly.

For me, this thread has degenerated into petty and rude fighting and it has become harder and harder to pick out salient and lucid points that add to the overall discussion or debate and once again, that is sad.

Huge thread though and it worries me that it is going the way of the current conflict and for all the same reasons

[zuby84]

Scuffers,

I agree with much of what you have said, but without getting into another mud-slinging contest; my definition of terrorism differs from yours and dare I say it; yours from many other people Worldwide who perhaps don't have a vested interest in this? We both have the right to disagree with one another on that front. Like I said; that has been the underlying theme for the last 170+ pages of "debate" (if you can even call it that) and we're not going to change each others minds. We just have to agree to disagree on that one.

In addition Scuffers, I haven't even attempted to tar "everyone with the same brush" as you allude to. I think that's the infamous straw-man argument that I've been subjected to? If anyone has done that during this thread; it's been you where you've been trying to paint every single Palestinian child/civilian who has died as a "potential Hamas terrorist" - quite contrary to your last post. It's just a bit ironic you would seemingly be lecturing about this. But credit where credit is due; your last post does show some rational thought process compared to many of your others and I can respect that even though I don't agree with your point of view.

Edited by zuby84 on Saturday 23 August 12:58

[avinalarf]

Slaav said:

I had originally hoped that I would find some reasonably strong debating on this thread! I genuinely thought that there were enough bright and sharp minds to 'argue' sensibly and give me both sides of the argument and help educate me personally as pretty much everyone can look at things subjectively rather than the often better objective position I would have preferred.

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers your last post does contain some sensible points, however I would say one more thing. Some of us agree that there are good and bad people in both Palestine and Israel but the doubt is what the Israeli government's intentions are, whether the IDF is complicit in a malign plan or it is unwittingly following this plan. We have seen BN's words stating he has no plan whatsoever for two states or equality for Palestinians in Israel, what do Israelis think about this, are they in agreement, are they about to revolt against the government, is BN just saying this to keep himself alive (not politically but literally) and secretly doing what FWDK did?

[Mrr T]

zuby84 said:

Scuffers,

I agree with much of what you have said, but without getting into another mud-slinging contest; my definition of terrorism differs from yours and dare I say it; yours from many other people Worldwide who perhaps don't have a vested interest in this? We both have the right to disagree with one another on that front. Like I said; that has been the underlying theme for the last 170+ pages of "debate" (if you can even call it that) and we're not going to change each others minds. We just have to agree to disagree on that one.

I also agree with all Scuffers says.

I also agree totally with the post above. We can all agree to disagree.

[TheRealFingers99]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There's a lot of pointers in Haaretz recently, and pointers to a growing body of protest among Israeli Jews.