Israeli

[avinalarf]

zuby84 said:

I think the main issue here is that Grumfutock doesn't really know how to draw logical conclusions from parallels that he seems to be using which can get quite irritating as arguments which aren't based on sound logic can start to unravel and hence desperation kicks in. This leads to people comparing apples to oranges when it suits their argument and discounting the comparison of apples to apples when it doesn't suit them.

Grumfutock said:

No, I am one of the only people on this thread pointing out that Israel are not the font of all evil in the area. That maybe, JUST maybe, if terrorists stop blowing up Israeli's, stop firing rockets at them and stop tunnelling then perhaps Israel will respond. Continue the terrorism then why oh why would you be surprised if the evil Zionist bullies drop a bomb on your house.

Here's a mind exercise for Grumfutock:

No, I am one of the only people on this thread pointing out that Hamas are not the font of all evil in the area. That maybe, JUST maybe, if Israel stop blowing up Palestinians, stop dropping bombs on them and stop stealing yet more Palestinian land then perhaps Hamas will respond. Continue the terrorism then why oh why would you be surprised if the evil Hamas terrorists fight back and build tunnels to try and fight back.


You see, Grumfutock's argument is really no more well thought out than "do X and Y may happen." I'm just surprised at how he's kept it up for so long. What I think will happen if Grumfutock's wishes came true:

Grumfutock said:

No, I am one of the only people on this thread pointing out that Israel are not the font of all evil in the area. That maybe, JUST maybe, if terrorists stop blowing up Israeli's, stop firing rockets at them and stop tunnelling then perhaps Israel will respond will continue to easily steal more land and further victimise the Palestinians without the eyes of the International community on them. Continue the terrorism then why oh why would you be surprised if the evil Zionist bullies drop a bomb on your house.

There are strong arguments on both sides that attempt to rationalise the course of action they take.
However when lives are lost and the quality of life becomes intolerable rational arguments are lost in the malestrom and emotion takes over.
RF uses chosen references to expand his argument but those references and statistics do not always bear reference to the emotional fears and distrust built up over the years.
For anybody just to quote references and statistics is somewhat disingenuous in such a scenario.

[zuby84]

Grumfutock said:

hey aren't terrorists are they! Of course they want peace!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-299117...

This is what I mean, you are debating with a figment of your imagination. No one at all is saying that attacks like that is not terrorism. Of course it's terrorism. Why you have to be so sarcastic about a point which people agree with you is beyond me. It smacks of desperation and shows that you don't really have a higher thought process.

NEWSFLASH: NO ONE HERE IS CONDONING HAMAS TERRORIST ATTACKS. I think you should just accept that, but if you do you won't really have much to add to this debate as your one trick argumentative-line will vanish. EVERYONE here accepts that Hamas engage in terrorist and immoral activities. You don't need to keep on harping about it as if you're debating against a figment of your imagination. The problem you have is that in your World everything is black and white - you are either lovers of Israel OR you are supporters of Hamas terrorists. I wish my life was that simple.

[Grumfutock]

zuby84 said:

Grumfutock said:

hey aren't terrorists are they! Of course they want peace!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-299117...

This is what I mean, you are debating with a figment of your imagination. No one at all is saying that attacks like that is not terrorism. Of course it's terrorism. Why you have to be so sarcastic about a point which people agree with you is beyond me. It smacks of desperation and shows that you don't really have a higher thought process.

NEWSFLASH: NO ONE HERE IS CONDONING HAMAS TERRORIST ATTACKS. I think you should just accept that, but if you do you won't really have much to add to this debate as your one trick argumentative-line will vanish. EVERYONE here accepts that Hamas engage in terrorist and immoral activities. You don't need to keep on harping about it as if you're debating against a figment of your imagination. The problem you have is that in your World everything is black and white - you are either lovers of Israel OR you are supporters of Hamas terrorists. I wish my life was that simple.

NEWS FLASH: BUT NOBODY ELSE HIGHLIGHTS THEM WHILST BANGING ON EVERY TIME ISRAEL DOES SOMETHING.

Finally get the point? Noooooooo you don't support Hamas but by god none of you EVER mention their wrong doing do you? Worst still is that when I do highlight Hamas action you all justify it with comments such as "oh well if the evil Zionists hadn't done something in 1948 then this would never of happened" or "Ah but look what Israel did"!! Look above!

Whilst I concede that you may not actively support the terrorist you sure as hell try your hardest to justify their actions. Am I wrong?

You all shout about muddying water, made up fact etc but you make me sick with your PC correct horse st on this. Trying to justify terrorism is the same as supporting it in my book.

As I have repeatedly said, don't fire rockets at a state and that state wont bomb you! No country would act differently. I would love to see what the US, China or Russia would do if this was done to their people.

[AW111]

Grumfutock said:

<snip>As I said, some sad people like to drift in every now and again to reignite the fire and watch the flames.

<snip>

I know your reply was to zuby, but I think there are plenty of flames here with or without us.

re not posting in this thread for some time : when other people are posting roughly what I would have said, why repeat them? I am not here to "win" anything.

[Mrr T]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Mrr T said:

So lets be clear you claimed there was new evidence Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty based on a faked recording in a film. You now want me to watch the film!!

Why do I want to watch a movie with a faked recording.

Can I suggest you stop relying on faked recording for evidence and look at the real evidence on the attack.

As for Jay Cristol does it matter what he is. All he did was file the FOI request with the NSA for recording related to the attach. The transcript then released by the NSA in 2003 is public record and shows at the time of the recording there was NO identification.

AFAIK Jay Cristol has nothing to do with the film.

Let me put it bluntly for you:

1. The film is either fake or not. I have absolutely no way of being 100% certain.
2. I use, and this is the third time I've said it, the film as an example. Nothing more.
3. If you can point me to the transcript, I'll happily look at it.

Let me put it bluntly to you.
1. Any supposed recording of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty is a fake. It takes about 10 minutes on the web to prove this.
2. Its an example of what? That you will post anything if its anti Israeli even if its clearly a fake. Yes proved.
3. Do your own research it takes about 10 minutes on the web to find the documents.

[Grumfutock]

AW111 said:

Grumfutock said:

<snip>As I said, some sad people like to drift in every now and again to reignite the fire and watch the flames.

<snip>

I know your reply was to zuby, but I think there are plenty of flames here with or without us.

re not posting in this thread for some time : when other people are posting roughly what I would have said, why repeat them? I am not here to "win" anything.

Well good for you.

[Grumfutock]

Mrr T said:

Let me put it bluntly to you.
1. Any supposed recording of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty is a fake. It takes about 10 minutes on the web to prove this.
2. Its an example of what? That you will post anything if its anti Israeli even if its clearly a fake. Yes proved.
3. Do your own research it takes about 10 minutes on the web to find the documents.

Exactly what I have been saying for ages. The ends justify the means. Some are so rabid in either their hatred of Israel or they clamour to be PC and jump on the amnesty international band wagon that they will stop at nothing to highlight the evils Zionist empire.

[zuby84]

Grumfutock said:

Whilst I concede that you may not actively support the terrorist you sure as hell try your hardest to justify their actions. Am I wrong?

You all shout about muddying water, made up fact etc but you make me sick with your PC correct horse st on this. Trying to justify terrorism is the same as supporting it in my book.

Another case in point of you trying to put words in people's mouths. I give up with you.

Let me be clear, you are the ONLY one here supporting the actions of terrorists. No one else is.

Now you might believe that because Israel gives its troops expensive weapons, uniforms, are a broadly recognised state and what you call a democracy it is impossible for Israel to be terrorists. Many others (including myself) disagree with that premise and believe that States can also be the perpetrators of terrorism. We just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Others are no more justifying Hamas's actions as you are justifying Israeli's actions. In fact you seem to cheer-lead for Israel a lot more than others are doing for Hamas.

Who do you think has been harder done-by over the past 50 years? A normal Palestinian or a normal Israeli? Who's shoes would you be in?

("normal" = non-violent)

Grumfutock said:

NEWS FLASH: BUT NOBODY ELSE HIGHLIGHTS THEM WHILST BANGING ON EVERY TIME ISRAEL DOES SOMETHING.

Yes, but you do a lot more than just highlighting news stories. You take it a step further and provide sarcastic commentary based on what you think your "imaginary enemy" is thinking/saying.

Edited by zuby84 on Wednesday 5th November 12:58

[Grumfutock]

zuby84 said:

Another case in point of you trying to put words in people's mouths. I give up with you.

Let me be clear, you are the ONLY one here supporting the actions of terrorists. No one else is.

You have just proved my point with your oblique reference to Israel being terrorists but making NO MENTION of Hamas. Thank you.

zuby84 said:

Now you might believe that because Israel gives its troops expensive weapons, uniforms, are a broadly recognised state and what you call a democracy it is impossible for Israel to be terrorists. Many others (including myself) disagree with that premise and believe that States can also be the perpetrators of terrorism. We just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Broadly recognised as a state? What I call democracy??? What???? How is Israel not a democracy or only a "broadly recognised state"???

zuby84 said:

Others are no more justifying Hamas's actions as you are justifying Israeli's actions. In fact you seem to cheer-lead for Israel a lot more than others are doing for Hamas.

Again you really have missed the point or are deliberately doing so.

zuby84 said:

Who do you think has been harder done-by over the past 50 years? A normal Palestinian or a normal Israeli? Who's shoes would you be in?

("normal" = non-violent)

Israeli without a doubt. The Arabs have repeatedly launched wars and attacks on them. It isn't Israel's fault that the Arabs are crap at doing it and have continuously had their arsed handed to them. Or maybe you see it differently?

zuby84 said:

Yes, but you do a lot more than just highlighting news stories. You take it a step further and provide sarcastic commentary based on what you think your "imaginary enemy" is thinking/saying.

I highlight a news story when the terrorists attack innocent people. I do it a lot more because there are a lot more attacks on Israel than on Hamas! FACT! Kind of the root of the problem wouldn't you say?

[zuby84]

Grumfutock said:

You have just proved my point with your oblique reference to Israel being terrorists but making NO MENTION of Hamas. Thank you.

You really are so silly. I have said countless times on this thread (and even on the last few pages) that Hamas also commit terrorist atrocities. Yet you have this notion that anyone also condemning Israel's actions is a "bogeyman" and love Hamas.

Grumfutock said:

Broadly recognised as a state? What I call democracy??? What???? How is Israel not a democracy or only a "broadly recognised state"???

You really need to get a better grasp of the English language. Broadly recognised as a state means that *most* countries recognise it as a State [and hence there are some that do not]. Is that factually wrong?

You call it a democracy - some others (as discussed earlier on in this thread) do not hence my phrase "what you call a democracy."

I'm not discussing whether or not *I* think it's a state or a democracy. There is a subtle yet important distinction, but you have shown that you cannot understand basic principles of debate.

Grumfutock said:

Israeli without a doubt. The Arabs have repeatedly launched wars and attacks on them. It isn't Israel's fault that the Arabs are crap at doing it and have continuously had their arsed handed to them. Or maybe you see it differently?

Yes I see it differently. I can also differentiate between the civilians of a country, their ethnic group and of the country itself. They are not interchangable, but I doubt you'll ever get the jist of that.

Grumfutock said:

I highlight a news story when the terrorists attack innocent people. I do it a lot more because there are a lot more attacks on Israel than on Hamas! FACT! Kind of the root of the problem wouldn't you say?

Here you go again, you are tarring (subconsciously in this case) all Palestinians as being Hamas. Maybe your statement is true (even if you substitute the word Palestine with Hamas) iF you count all of Israel's "Operation Protective Edge" as only one attack and count the individual Hamas/Palestinian terrorist attacks up individually. But you and me both know that is disingenuous to say the least. You are the classical brainwashed Israeli fanboy - no wonder we will never see any peace if there's people like you out there.

I know you're not the brightest, but at least try and think things through before you just see random words and then put words in people's mouth that they didn't say.

[Grumfutock]

zuby84 said:

I know you're not the brightest, but at least try and think things through before you just see random words and then put words in people's mouth that they didn't say.

You really are a funny little man aren't you, sad and pathetic, but fairly funny.

Now off you trot to the side lines until the thread goes quiet for a bit and then you may come back out and stir the pot, there's a good little boy.

[TheRealFingers99]

Mrr T said:

Its an example of what? That you will post anything if its anti Israeli even if its clearly a fake. Yes proved.

Let me quote myself:



1.

TheRealFingers99 said:

I also imply that we need to use all the sources available. Where there are documents that have only recently been released, we need to use them.

Did you see "The Day Israel Attacked America"? You can find it on line here. Let's use that as an example.

Previous analysis had (with some reservations) followed the joint US/Israeli line that the attack on the USS Liberty (by Israeli jets and torpedo boats, in International Waters) had been a terrible accident -- the Israelis had somehow mistaken it for an Egyptian naval vessel, in poor visibility, the fog of war, and due to Israeli incompetence, the allied vessel had been repeatedly attacked.

However, the voice tapes of conversations from the Israeli pilots to their command centre (recently found) show that the identity of the vessel was well known by the attackers, the reports of those who were there that the weather was clear (the Americans were even sunbathing on deck when the attack started).

At this point we need to reconsider and re-write history.

The new evidence forces us to re-assess (to "re-judge" if you like) what really happened and why.

p.357

2.

TheRealFingers99 said:

I use it (as I've said repeatedly) only as an example of why (and how) history must adapt to new revelations.

p.358

So, your allegation is clearly wildly out of context -- deliberately so, on the face of it. It's easy to find Israeli war crimes, attacks on allied troups, acts of terror. Would I really need another?

Mrr T said:

Do your own research it takes about 10 minutes on the web to find the documents.

Maybe. But your reluctance to inform me leads me to suspect that either they're not that easy to find or that you don't know how to post links. If the latter, I'll happily show you.

I'll see what I can come up with.

Unlike you, I'm happy to review all evidence.

Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Wednesday 5th November 14:48

[TheRealFingers99]

avinalarf said:

There are strong arguments on both sides that attempt to rationalise the course of action they take.
However when lives are lost and the quality of life becomes intolerable rational arguments are lost in the malestrom and emotion takes over.
RF uses chosen references to expand his argument but those references and statistics do not always bear reference to the emotional fears and distrust built up over the years.
For anybody just to quote references and statistics is somewhat disingenuous in such a scenario.

I'd agree with much of that.

I don't know about "disingenuous": the references point in part to the history. You'd hope that a review of the history -- a search for the truth -- might remove, ultimately, some of the emotion, or at least provide an understanding of what leads to the emotional maelstrom.

As I see it, we confront:

• On the Palestinian side -- religious fanatics, preying on the (genuine) suffering of the people, using crazy tactics which lead to more suffering and so on. It needs to be said, though, that even blind submission would likely lead to nothing more than continued oppression.

• On the Israeli side -- denial and brutality. Denial that the situation has anything remotely to do with them, the brutality of an army of occupation able to do pretty much what it likes.

Is there any hope? Well, there are still Israelis and Palestinians prepared to meet and talk. Not so many, but they are out there. Somewhere on t'Interweb Pappe talks of his vision. It may be a possibility.

[avinalarf]

K

TheRealFingers99 said:

avinalarf said:

There are strong arguments on both sides that attempt to rationalise the course of action they take.
However when lives are lost and the quality of life becomes intolerable rational arguments are lost in the malestrom and emotion takes over.
RF uses chosen references to expand his argument but those references and statistics do not always bear reference to the emotional fears and distrust built up over the years.
For anybody just to quote references and statistics is somewhat disingenuous in such a scenario.

I'd agree with much of that.

I don't know about "disingenuous": the references point in part to the history. You'd hope that a review of the history -- a search for the truth -- might remove, ultimately, some of the emotion, or at least provide an understanding of what leads to the emotional maelstrom.

As I see it, we confront:

• On the Palestinian side -- religious fanatics, preying on the (genuine) suffering of the people, using crazy tactics which lead to more suffering and so on. It needs to be said, though, that even blind submission would likely lead to nothing more than continued oppression.

• On the Israeli side -- denial and brutality. Denial that the situation has anything remotely to do with them, the brutality of an army of occupation able to do pretty much what it likes.

Is there any hope? Well, there are still Israelis and Palestinians prepared to meet and talk. Not so many, but they are out there. Somewhere on t'Interweb Pappe talks of his vision. It may be a possibility.

When you refer to the Israeli "occupation" you use a phrase "denial and brutality".
I could use a similar phrase to describe Palestinian actions,I choose not too as it would only polarise opinion.
Such emotive language only polarises opinion and will not lead to a rounded debate,or lead to a solution of a very devisive problem.
It is this very polarisation that has broadly led the I's and P's to where they are now.
In the case of South Africa it took a great man like NM to appreciate this and work with the ruling regime to bring about a just settlement.

[TheRealFingers99]

Grumfutock said:

But then again some idiots believe in god, ..................... that bacon is dirty so I don't put to much into opinions.

Enough of the anti-Semitism, please.

Incidentally, when was the last time you criticised Israeli terrorism? And Israel, the shining example of democracy, has denied the Palestinians the vote -- in their own country -- for 70 years. It's as democratic as occupied Belgium was in 1941!

[SR7492]

Grumfutock said:

You really are a funny little man aren't you, sad and pathetic, but fairly funny.
.

I love the fact that you have accused others of being a troll by naming calling and being abusive.

What a hypocrite!

As many have pointed out, several times, you don't react well when your questioned on your blinded side love for Israel. That is actually sad and pathetic.

One of the reasons why I stopped posting on this topic is because of clowns like you; how can anyone have a reasonable debate with you when you just to piss everyone off. That really says something about you.

Are you Jewish? If so, are you a Zionist?

Why do I ask this, because I SENSE that you think most who have contributed to this thread and criticised Israel/IDF all have common hated for Israel; and you are defending the indefensible!

[Grumfutock]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Grumfutock said:

But then again some idiots believe in god, ..................... that bacon is dirty so I don't put to much into opinions.

Enough of the anti-Semitism, please.

Incidentally, when was the last time you criticised Israeli terrorism? And Israel, the shining example of democracy, has denied the Palestinians the vote -- in their own country -- for 70 years. It's as democratic as occupied Belgium was in 1941!

And once again I will explain to you, although how many ways I can do this is beyond me. I cannot criticise Israeli terrorism because they are not terrorists! They are defending their state from attack. Now I know you don't see it that way and I wont convince you of it but please accept that you will not convince me that they are terrorists. Sorry.

[Mrr T]

TheRealFingers99 said:

Mrr T said:

Its an example of what? That you will post anything if its anti Israeli even if its clearly a fake. Yes proved.

Let me quote myself:



1.

TheRealFingers99 said:

I also imply that we need to use all the sources available. Where there are documents that have only recently been released, we need to use them.

Did you see "The Day Israel Attacked America"? You can find it on line here. Let's use that as an example.

Previous analysis had (with some reservations) followed the joint US/Israeli line that the attack on the USS Liberty (by Israeli jets and torpedo boats, in International Waters) had been a terrible accident -- the Israelis had somehow mistaken it for an Egyptian naval vessel, in poor visibility, the fog of war, and due to Israeli incompetence, the allied vessel had been repeatedly attacked.

However, the voice tapes of conversations from the Israeli pilots to their command centre (recently found) show that the identity of the vessel was well known by the attackers, the reports of those who were there that the weather was clear (the Americans were even sunbathing on deck when the attack started).

At this point we need to reconsider and re-write history.

The new evidence forces us to re-assess (to "re-judge" if you like) what really happened and why.

p.357

2.

TheRealFingers99 said:

I use it (as I've said repeatedly) only as an example of why (and how) history must adapt to new revelations.

p.358

So, your allegation is clearly wildly out of context -- deliberately so, on the face of it. It's easy to find Israeli war crimes, attacks on allied troups, acts of terror. Would I really need another?

So lets be clear you said

"However, the voice tapes of conversations from the Israeli pilots to their command centre (recently found) show that the identity of the vessel was well known by the attackers,"

Your evidence is a film.

You did not bother to check this important fact which would clearly have shown there is no know recording. So the film recoding is fiction.

No I think my allegations are wholly correct.

[Grumfutock]

SR7492 said:

I love the fact that you have accused others of being a troll by naming calling and being abusive.

What a hypocrite!

As many have pointed out, several times, you don't react well when your questioned on your blinded side love for Israel. That is actually sad and pathetic.

One of the reasons why I stopped posting on this topic is because of clowns like you; how can anyone have a reasonable debate with you when you just to piss everyone off. That really says something about you.

Are you Jewish? If so, are you a Zionist?

Why do I ask this, because I SENSE that you think most who have contributed to this thread and criticised Israel/IDF all have common hated for Israel; and you are defending the indefensible!

Thank you for your kind words. I am touched.

And once again you choose to jump in on a response to somebody else and fail to quote the whole thing, but please feel free to assume the insults apply to you as well.

You just love misrepresenting things don't you, oh hang on, but that is the terrorist excusers normal action isn't it! What they call propaganda I believe.

[TheRealFingers99]

avinalarf said:

When you refer to the Israeli "occupation" you use a phrase "denial and brutality".
I could use a similar phrase to describe Palestinian actions,I choose not too as it would only polarise opinion.

What would you call it if not an "occupation"?

"Denial" here in the sense of someone denying they have any responsibility for the issue. In Shalom's words:

Interviewer: Please describe what happened that evening. You got a call and were told a bus was hijacked?
Shalom: I don't remember. I was in Haifa. Yes, and... They said, "A bus was hijacked. Come." So I went.
[reconstructed footage]
Shalom: The army handled it. During the operation, they killed two, and two came out unharmed. I didn't know that then. They beat the daylights out of them, the two of them. So the Shin Bet took them... I asked Ehud, the Head of Operations, what state were they in. He said they were almost dead. Maybe the soldiers said so. So I said, "Hit them again and finish it." He didn't do that. He did what he described, which I found out a year later.
Interviewer: What did he do?
Shalom: I think he took a rock and smashed their heads in, but they were unconscious. I don't know what state they were in.
Interviewer: The photo showed them before they were beaten up.
Shalom: The army pounced on them. The photo was taken before that. It's not how they looked when we got them.
Interviewer:How did they look?
Shalom: I don't know, but some thought they were dead. They broke their bones. It was a lynching.
Interviewer:You didn't physically see them?
Shalom: I didn't see them.

Brutality and murder.

And:

On the other hand, it[the IDF]'s a brutal occupation force, similar to the Germans in World War ll. Similar, not identical. And I'm not talking about their behaviour toward the Jews. That was exceptional, with its own particular characteristics. I mean how they acted to the Poles, the Belgians, the Dutch...To all of them... The Czechs. It's a very negative trait that we acquired,to be... I'm afraid to say it, so I won't. We've become cruel,to ourselves as well,but mainly to the occupied population, using the excuse of the war against terror."

We can call it whatever you like. But the execution, by beating to death, of disarmed prisoners? Were we talking of ISIS we'd call that brutality.

Should you think that the former hard man of Shin Bet went completely soft in the head in his dotage, read through some of the transcripts Breaking the Silence (ex IDF grunts) have compiled. They include revenge killings, looting, casual brutality, the use of human shields and so on.