Discussion
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
The latest Dolphin II sub is now on the way to the IDF. That will make Iran think twice about any direct action and give Israel an off shore 2nd strike capability
Reminds me of the number of threats Israel has made to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. But no, Israel genuinely wants peace.Grumfutock said:
Yes because the best way to secure peace would be to become weak, disarm the troops and destroy all of Israel's armoury! What a stupid post!
You really don't "get it" do you. No-one can ever achieve a long term win through violence alone. USA has failed following 9/11 and Israel will fail - all it can do is postpone its destruction.
A win is achieved through bridge building, not through violence.
Qwert1e said:
Grumfutock said:
Yes because the best way to secure peace would be to become weak, disarm the troops and destroy all of Israel's armoury! What a stupid post!
You really don't "get it" do you. No-one can ever achieve a long term win through violence alone. USA has failed following 9/11 and Israel will fail - all it can do is postpone its destruction.
A win is achieved through bridge building, not through violence.
Grumfutock said:
Qwert1e said:
Grumfutock said:
Yes because the best way to secure peace would be to become weak, disarm the troops and destroy all of Israel's armoury! What a stupid post!
You really don't "get it" do you. No-one can ever achieve a long term win through violence alone. USA has failed following 9/11 and Israel will fail - all it can do is postpone its destruction.
A win is achieved through bridge building, not through violence.
In the case of Hitler, the rest of the world did try to appease him for far too long. He was 'allowed' to expand his doctrine, imprison the people who didn't agree with his doctrine, herd up and dispose of his hated enemy. The vile and disgusting part was that the rest of the world stood by allowing a terrible historical atrocity to occur until finally the RoW woke up and realised Hitler and the Nazis had to be stopped.
Lines were drawn somewhat late, which ultimately led to a war. Hitler gave the RoW no choice. Idiot (and vile and disgusting man)!
One of history's worst periods seems to have failed to teach everyone a lesson. Without studying history, we are all in danger of making the same mistakes all over again.
This lesson from history could unfortunately be altered into modern day speak far too easily..... Especially in the context of this conflict. The horror is that it COULD BE USED TO ARGUE BOTH SIDES! That is truly shameful.
Grumfutock said:
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
The latest Dolphin II sub is now on the way to the IDF. That will make Iran think twice about any direct action and give Israel an off shore 2nd strike capability
Reminds me of the number of threats Israel has made to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. But no, Israel genuinely wants peace.Just how good are those blinkers you're wearing? Most countries are able to achieve peace through dialogue and compromise. Yet you think that Israel's only option is to carry out per-emptive attacks on ANY country that might, possibly, approach its own in terms of military strength. And not just its only option but a "reasonable" option?
With supporters like you it's no f
king wonder that this crap has been going on for 40 years. Seizing Palestinian land, killing 2000 Palestinians every few years is a mere trifle. Apparently you think it's ok for Israel to launch unprovoked attacks on other countries "just in case". Jesus wept.Slaav said:
Oops.... Here I go again!
In the case of Hitler, the rest of the world did try to appease him for far too long. He was 'allowed' to expand his doctrine, imprison the people who didn't agree with his doctrine, herd up and dispose of his hated enemy. The vile and disgusting part was that the rest of the world stood by allowing a terrible historical atrocity to occur until finally the RoW woke up and realised Hitler and the Nazis had to be stopped.
Lines were drawn somewhat late, which ultimately led to a war. Hitler gave the RoW no choice. Idiot (and vile and disgusting man)!
Hmmm... Occupying land, herding up his hated enemy, while the rest of the world stands by.......In the case of Hitler, the rest of the world did try to appease him for far too long. He was 'allowed' to expand his doctrine, imprison the people who didn't agree with his doctrine, herd up and dispose of his hated enemy. The vile and disgusting part was that the rest of the world stood by allowing a terrible historical atrocity to occur until finally the RoW woke up and realised Hitler and the Nazis had to be stopped.
Lines were drawn somewhat late, which ultimately led to a war. Hitler gave the RoW no choice. Idiot (and vile and disgusting man)!
Qwert1e said:
You really don't "get it" do you.
No-one can ever achieve a long term win through violence alone. USA has failed following 9/11 and Israel will fail - all it can do is postpone its destruction.
A win is achieved through bridge building, not through violence.
What? You mean like the vast majority of other civilised countries?No-one can ever achieve a long term win through violence alone. USA has failed following 9/11 and Israel will fail - all it can do is postpone its destruction.
A win is achieved through bridge building, not through violence.
It'll never catch on. You're forgetting Israels inalienable right to exist which relies on killing Palestinians and annexing their land, and bombing other countries just in case.
Countdown said:
You're not kidding!!
Just how good are those blinkers you're wearing? Most countries are able to achieve peace through dialogue and compromise. Yet you think that Israel's only option is to carry out per-emptive attacks on ANY country that might, possibly, approach its own in terms of military strength. And not just its only option but a "reasonable" option?
With supporters like you it's no fking wonder that this crap has been going on for 40 years. Seizing Palestinian land, killing 2000 Palestinians every few years is a mere trifle. Apparently you think it's ok for Israel to launch unprovoked attacks on other countries "just in case". Jesus wept.
Here's a news flash for you. There are more conflicts, wars and armed struggles going on right now than at any time in modern history! What a crass and naïve thing to say.Just how good are those blinkers you're wearing? Most countries are able to achieve peace through dialogue and compromise. Yet you think that Israel's only option is to carry out per-emptive attacks on ANY country that might, possibly, approach its own in terms of military strength. And not just its only option but a "reasonable" option?
With supporters like you it's no f
king wonder that this crap has been going on for 40 years. Seizing Palestinian land, killing 2000 Palestinians every few years is a mere trifle. Apparently you think it's ok for Israel to launch unprovoked attacks on other countries "just in case". Jesus wept.Talking only works when both sides do it, not one! If the other side ceases to respond to dialogue are you supposed to just roll over and die????
And yet "apparently" you think this is fine for Hamas to launch unprovoked attacks? Seriously are you some sort of hippie throw back that never grew up? This isn't a flower power commune, this is real life!
Countdown said:
What? You mean like the vast majority of other civilised countries?
It'll never catch on. You're forgetting Israels inalienable right to exist which relies on killing Palestinians and annexing their land, and bombing other countries just in case.
Wel, it certainly does rely on killing Palestinians who launch rockets aimed indiscriminately, are armed with RPG's and AK47's and who creep over the border with murderous intent. It seems to really bug you when a country has armed forces which it deploys to defend its citizens.It'll never catch on. You're forgetting Israels inalienable right to exist which relies on killing Palestinians and annexing their land, and bombing other countries just in case.
May I respectfully suggest you Google "Ma'alot" and then get back to us with some considered and rational thoughts that don't include the words "freedom fighters".
As for bombing other countries - if you are referring to the destruction of Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor, you'l probably find that Thatcher and Reagan and the rest of the Western World were counting their blessings on that one. I also missed your heartfelt condemnation of RAF bombing missions over Oman in 1972 and Iraq in 1991 and 2003. But that's OK isn't it because it didn't involve Israel.
Annexing land? Well one man's spoils of war are another man's occupation. General Galtieri suffered from similar confusion.
We get it. You hate the State of Israel. If you could see your way clear to knocking the rabid rhetoric on the head and concentrating on matters of proven historical fact, this thread would be a much more interesting one to visit.
Grumfutock said:
Here's a news flash for you. There are more conflicts, wars and armed struggles going on right now than at any time in modern history! What a crass and naïve thing to say.
I think that's completely made up rubbish to be frank. If it isn't rubbish feel free to provide stats to show how you're comparing the current period with, for example 1914-1918, 1939-1945. 1965-1975. There have been numerous conflicts of varying sizes throughout history. To suggest we're living through a particularly volatile time suggests a lack of intelligence or a load of rubbish. But please, feel free to correct me.Grumfutock said:
Talking only works when both sides do it, not one! If the other side ceases to respond to dialogue are you supposed to just roll over and die????
A masterclass of disingenuity and hyperbole. Let me break it down for you;There is no current conflict between Israel and Iran
Iran IS engaging in dialogue.
Israel has repeatedly asked the US to attack Iran, not because of any current conflict, not because of any impending conflict, but purely because Iran will come closer to matching Israeli military capability.
And you think this is justified and acceptable.
Israel wants to negotiate with its opponents in the same way as it negotiates with the Palestinians - by pointing a gun at them. This only works when the other side doesn't also have a gun.
Grumfutock said:
And yet "apparently" you think this is fine for Hamas to launch unprovoked attacks? Seriously are you some sort of hippie throw back that never grew up? This isn't a flower power commune, this is real life!
Of course Hamas's attacks were unprovoked. They had nothing to do with the mass arrest of Hamas supporters in the West Bank. Nothing to do with the fact that most of those supporters had been released as part of an agreement to release Gilad Shalit.And then, after all this, Israel annexes another 1000 acres of West Bank land. Which it has been doing bit by bit since 1967. But of course, any resistance by Hamas is an "unprovoked" attack. Just like Israel attacking Iran will be Iran's fault. No doubt in 50 years time we'll be syaing that Israel was forced to attack Iran because Iran was about to launch an imminent attack on Israel and Israel was attacking out of self-defence.
audidoody said:
Wel, it certainly does rely on killing Palestinians who launch rockets aimed indiscriminately, are armed with RPG's and AK47's and who creep over the border with murderous intent. It seems to really bug you when a country has armed forces which it deploys to defend its citizens.
May I respectfully suggest you Google "Ma'alot" and then get back to us with some considered and rational thoughts that don't include the words "freedom fighters".
As for bombing other countries - if you are referring to the destruction of Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor, you'l probably find that Thatcher and Reagan and the rest of the Western World were counting their blessings on that one. I also missed your heartfelt condemnation of RAF bombing missions over Oman in 1972 and Iraq in 1991 and 2003. But that's OK isn't it because it didn't involve Israel.
Annexing land? Well one man's spoils of war are another man's occupation. General Galtieri suffered from similar confusion.
We get it. You hate the State of Israel. If you could see your way clear to knocking the rabid rhetoric on the head and concentrating on matters of proven historical fact, this thread would be a much more interesting one to visit.
Yes.May I respectfully suggest you Google "Ma'alot" and then get back to us with some considered and rational thoughts that don't include the words "freedom fighters".
As for bombing other countries - if you are referring to the destruction of Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor, you'l probably find that Thatcher and Reagan and the rest of the Western World were counting their blessings on that one. I also missed your heartfelt condemnation of RAF bombing missions over Oman in 1972 and Iraq in 1991 and 2003. But that's OK isn't it because it didn't involve Israel.
Annexing land? Well one man's spoils of war are another man's occupation. General Galtieri suffered from similar confusion.
We get it. You hate the State of Israel. If you could see your way clear to knocking the rabid rhetoric on the head and concentrating on matters of proven historical fact, this thread would be a much more interesting one to visit.
You'll find I also forgot to condemn Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, the bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, Count Dracula, and the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Because if I condemn Israel I also need to condemn every other military action in History, don't I?
audidoody said:
Annexing land? Well one man's spoils of war are another man's occupation. General Galtieri suffered from similar confusion.
I notice no comments on Israel's annexation of WB farmland. Must be quite embarrassing for you and Grum, given how many times you've tried to explain Israel's actions as self defense and "unprovoked".Don't ask why but I gave just been reading about the raid on Entebbe. I had absolutely no idea that the lead commando was the elder brother of someone currently involved heavily in this conflict....
And that CO was the only IDF chap killed in the raid! A raid that saved many Jewish and Israeli hostages. If that 'hero' was my elder brother, I would struggle to be objective and negotiate fairly and genuinely, regardless of the passage of time
And that CO was the only IDF chap killed in the raid! A raid that saved many Jewish and Israeli hostages. If that 'hero' was my elder brother, I would struggle to be objective and negotiate fairly and genuinely, regardless of the passage of time
Grumfutock said:
Here's a news flash for you. There are more conflicts, wars and armed struggles going on right now than at any time in modern history! What a crass and naïve thing to say.
Countdown said:
I think that's completely made up rubbish to be frank. If it isn't rubbish feel free to provide stats to show how you're comparing the current period with, for example 1914-1918, 1939-1945. 1965-1975. There have been numerous conflicts of varying sizes throughout history. To suggest we're living through a particularly volatile time suggests a lack of intelligence or a load of rubbish. But please, feel free to correct me.
Why? WW1 was one war! WW2 was one war! FFS read the statement! Consider facts rubbish if you wish, well you have so far so why change now, but it is reality.
Grumfutock said:
Why? WW1 was one war! WW2 was one war! FFS read the statement!
Consider facts rubbish if you wish, well you have so far so why change now, but it is reality.
Yep. I thought you'd try that little trick, as if the size of the conflict is irrelevant. But do you think that there was only ONE conflict going on between 14-18, or 39-45, or 65-75?Consider facts rubbish if you wish, well you have so far so why change now, but it is reality.
When you made your original statement, did you actually count the number of conflicts during modern history, or was it just a guess?
Countdown said:
I notice no comments on Israel's annexation of WB farmland. Must be quite embarrassing for you and Grum, given how many times you've tried to explain Israel's actions as self defense and "unprovoked".
Careful now Count, you are bordering on being accused of being anti-Jew and wishing all Jews were dead (sorry, most of them, according to some on here, not mentioning any names).Of course criticising Israel has nothing to do with its policy of discrimination against Palestinians or any land theft being applied daily in the WB, or the reckless killing of thousands of civilians in Gaza.
"The only other possible explanation is that Israel is Jewish.
There is no other rational explanation because the fixation with, and the hatred of, Israel are not rational. Israel is a particularly decent country" according to this article.
Amen!
Countdown said:
Grumfutock said:
Why? WW1 was one war! WW2 was one war! FFS read the statement!
Consider facts rubbish if you wish, well you have so far so why change now, but it is reality.
Yep. I thought you'd try that little trick, as if the size of the conflict is irrelevant. But do you think that there was only ONE conflict going on between 14-18, or 39-45, or 65-75?Consider facts rubbish if you wish, well you have so far so why change now, but it is reality.
When you made your original statement, did you actually count the number of conflicts during modern history, or was it just a guess?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff