Discussion
You must admit that you've posted links to some pretty oddball Israeli sites in the past! JensenA said:
You must spend all your life hunting for anti Hammas and pro Israeli news items so you can rush to this forum and post a link. There was simply no need for the above post. I read the news as well, and was aware of this, and as it happens I think Hammas are wrong. I also read other news items showing Israel in a bad light, but I don't rush to my lap top to post a link to them.
I reckon you must work for the Israeli propaganda department.
and the pro palestian posters don't ? I reckon you must work for the Israeli propaganda department.
Once more may I point out that although in some cases it may be true, criticising some of Israel's actions, some of the extreme stated goals and even some of the individuals concerned does NOT automatically make the person doing the criticising PRO Islam etc.
I am personally more than happy to criticise a lot of the actions in the Muslim world and especially a lot of the IS/ISIS stuff - that does not make me pro Jew/Israel!
The stupid logic that 'all monkeys are living beings; I am alive therefore I must be a monkey' etc is dumb reasoning.
If I criticise the behaviour of one side in a conflict, I am criticising that side or their actions.... Now, I may also be supporting the other side? Or I may also criticise them? It is not always sufficient to place words and thoughts into people's brains to justify attacking them on a forum?
I am personally more than happy to criticise a lot of the actions in the Muslim world and especially a lot of the IS/ISIS stuff - that does not make me pro Jew/Israel!
The stupid logic that 'all monkeys are living beings; I am alive therefore I must be a monkey' etc is dumb reasoning.
If I criticise the behaviour of one side in a conflict, I am criticising that side or their actions.... Now, I may also be supporting the other side? Or I may also criticise them? It is not always sufficient to place words and thoughts into people's brains to justify attacking them on a forum?
Transmitter Man said:
Minicab drivers - View of white girls over their own. This is also noting that some of them are not safe either.
Racism, what do you call it?
Phil
So I suggest that people who are well-travelled tend to be less racist.Racism, what do you call it?
Phil
You say it's not true because Pakistani taxi-drivers have been grooming and raping white girls in Rochdale?
I've seen some ludicrous assertions in my time but that takes the biscuit. Do you think the grooming/raping was "because they were racist"?
Transmitter Man said:
Minicab drivers - View of white girls over their own. This is also noting that some of them are not safe either.
Racism, what do you call it?
Phil
Some men (mainly from the far East) treat their "own" women in a similar fashion. All of the religions of the book are profoundly patriarchal. But as the practice of grooming white girls and abusing female relatives isn't widespread among Muslims generally, or even among men from the far East who happen to be Muslims, how would you begin to categorise it as anything other than abuse?Racism, what do you call it?
Phil
Note, too, the rapes and murders of women in India by Hindus!
Empowerment will eventually stop it as will the decline of the sky-god religions. Equality can even come out of the barrel of a gun.
As my (nominally) Muslim comrade has it:
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Monday 29th December 14:39
anyone else read this? bizarre, very good comparison and this man Herzl Makov complains.
'Just days after the Pakistani government hit out at the U.S. series over its portrayal of the country, Israelis have sharply criticized the television show and demanded an explanation for the comparison.
The offending scene involved a conversation between CIA agent Dar Adal and former CIA director Saul Berenson, a Jewish character played by Mandy Patinkin.
Berenson describes Haqqani as a terrorist who 'recently killed 36 Americans'.
Adal responds: 'Menachem Begin killed 91 British soldiers at the King David hotel before he became prime minister.'
The Homeland CIA agent was referring to a bombing at the King David hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 that was carried out by the Irgun, a right-wing militant Jewish organization which was headed by Menachem Begin.
Herzl Makov, head of the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem told Israeli news site Ynet, that the statement was: 'Slander against Menachem Begin and Israel'.
Menachem Begin
Menachem Begin (right), the commander of the Irgun - a right-wing Jewish extremist group - speaks to activists in 1948. The group was responsible for the attack on the King David Hotel two years earlier.
He said: 'To say that Menachem Begin killed? He wasn't there. The underground organization was under his command and he took responsibility.
'Additionally, during the incident, three warnings were given to the British to evacuate the place. The British commander refused.'
BOMBING OF KING DAVID HOTEL
On July 22, 1946, the King David Hotel in Jerusalem was attacked by right-wing Jewish organization the Irgun.
A total of 91 people of various nationalities - including 28 Britons - were killed and 46 injured.
The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine.
Bombing is regarded historically as a contributing factor to the British mandate’s decline.
The attack remains highly controversial, and there has been heated debate over when warnings were sent and how British authorities responded.
Menachem Begin began his political career as head of Irgun, where he was commander from 1943 to 1948.
He added: 'Therefore, there is a dramatic difference between the two incidents that were compared. As far as I'm concerned, it is just like saying that they are both terrorists because they wore brown shirts.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2889889/No...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebo
'Just days after the Pakistani government hit out at the U.S. series over its portrayal of the country, Israelis have sharply criticized the television show and demanded an explanation for the comparison.
The offending scene involved a conversation between CIA agent Dar Adal and former CIA director Saul Berenson, a Jewish character played by Mandy Patinkin.
Berenson describes Haqqani as a terrorist who 'recently killed 36 Americans'.
Adal responds: 'Menachem Begin killed 91 British soldiers at the King David hotel before he became prime minister.'
The Homeland CIA agent was referring to a bombing at the King David hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 that was carried out by the Irgun, a right-wing militant Jewish organization which was headed by Menachem Begin.
Herzl Makov, head of the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem told Israeli news site Ynet, that the statement was: 'Slander against Menachem Begin and Israel'.
Menachem Begin
Menachem Begin (right), the commander of the Irgun - a right-wing Jewish extremist group - speaks to activists in 1948. The group was responsible for the attack on the King David Hotel two years earlier.
He said: 'To say that Menachem Begin killed? He wasn't there. The underground organization was under his command and he took responsibility.
'Additionally, during the incident, three warnings were given to the British to evacuate the place. The British commander refused.'
BOMBING OF KING DAVID HOTEL
On July 22, 1946, the King David Hotel in Jerusalem was attacked by right-wing Jewish organization the Irgun.
A total of 91 people of various nationalities - including 28 Britons - were killed and 46 injured.
The hotel was the site of the central offices of the British Mandatory authorities of Palestine.
Bombing is regarded historically as a contributing factor to the British mandate’s decline.
The attack remains highly controversial, and there has been heated debate over when warnings were sent and how British authorities responded.
Menachem Begin began his political career as head of Irgun, where he was commander from 1943 to 1948.
He added: 'Therefore, there is a dramatic difference between the two incidents that were compared. As far as I'm concerned, it is just like saying that they are both terrorists because they wore brown shirts.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2889889/No...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebo
Grumfutock said:
You call it 'acts of terrorism' I call it acts of defence.
What the hell were they defending by blowing up the King David Hotel? "Motivation for the bombing[edit]
The Irgun committed the attack in response to Operation Agatha, known in Israel as "Black Saturday". British troops had searched the Jewish Agency on June 29 and confiscated large quantities of documents which contained incriminating information about the Agency's involvement with violent acts. The intelligence information was taken to the King David Hotel,[10] where it was initially kept in the offices of the Secretariat in the southern wing. In order to destroy the documentation, the Irgun therefore determined to destroy that wing of the hotel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bomb...
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
You call it 'acts of terrorism' I call it acts of defence.
What the hell were they defending by blowing up the King David Hotel? "Motivation for the bombing[edit]
The Irgun committed the attack in response to Operation Agatha, known in Israel as "Black Saturday". British troops had searched the Jewish Agency on June 29 and confiscated large quantities of documents which contained incriminating information about the Agency's involvement with violent acts. The intelligence information was taken to the King David Hotel,[10] where it was initially kept in the offices of the Secretariat in the southern wing. In order to destroy the documentation, the Irgun therefore determined to destroy that wing of the hotel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bomb...
TheRealFingers99 said:
Does rather bring to mind Grumfutock's refusal to condemn acts of terrorism committed by Zionists, Jews, or Israel.
I find this denial of their own bloody past incredibly depressing.
It was committed by Zionists under the orders of a future Israeli Prime Minister. It fulfils at least 2 of the either/or conditions. I find this denial of their own bloody past incredibly depressing.
Are you going to condemn it or even acknowledge it as an act of terrorism?
TheRealFingers99 said:
It was committed by Zionists under the orders of a future Israeli Prime Minister. It fulfils at least 2 of the either/or conditions.
Are you going to condemn it or even acknowledge it as an act of terrorism?
Of course it was an act of terrorism but it has no bearing what so ever on this discussion. Whenever I have mentioned things from that time line this is exactly what you have claimed. I think the quote went some thing along the lines of "70 years ago, old news". I even asked, again repeatedly, for clarification of how far back was relevant.Are you going to condemn it or even acknowledge it as an act of terrorism?
But if you now wish to go down that route and look at pre Israel then by all means let me know.
If it has no bearing on this discussion, why the controversy? Why the outrage from Israelis? Why the Nakba denial?
If the past has no bearing on the present, why Ben-Gurion's insane rant?
"We will establish a Christian state in Lebanon, the southern border of which will be the Litani River. We will break Transjordan, bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight -- we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. This will be in revenge for what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during Biblical times."
I'd posit that in order to maintain some semblance of "good guy" status in the present, Israel has to deny its past.
And I note that you do not condemn it.
If the past has no bearing on the present, why Ben-Gurion's insane rant?
"We will establish a Christian state in Lebanon, the southern border of which will be the Litani River. We will break Transjordan, bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight -- we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. This will be in revenge for what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during Biblical times."
I'd posit that in order to maintain some semblance of "good guy" status in the present, Israel has to deny its past.
And I note that you do not condemn it.
TheRealFingers99 said:
If it has no bearing on this discussion, why the controversy? Why the outrage from Israelis? Why the Nakba denial?
If the past has no bearing on the present, why Ben-Gurion's insane rant?
"We will establish a Christian state in Lebanon, the southern border of which will be the Litani River. We will break Transjordan, bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight -- we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. This will be in revenge for what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during Biblical times."
I'd posit that in order to maintain some semblance of "good guy" status in the present, Israel has to deny its past.
And I note that you do not condemn it.
Sorry which bit of "it was an act of terrorism" didn't you read?If the past has no bearing on the present, why Ben-Gurion's insane rant?
"We will establish a Christian state in Lebanon, the southern border of which will be the Litani River. We will break Transjordan, bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight -- we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. This will be in revenge for what they (the Egyptians, the Aramis and Assyrians) did to our forefathers during Biblical times."
I'd posit that in order to maintain some semblance of "good guy" status in the present, Israel has to deny its past.
And I note that you do not condemn it.
I notice you still don't answer the question relating to how far back is to far? Shall we discuss the Tiberias massacre? Maybe the Hebron massacre? Perhaps the Western Wall Uprising? How far back do you wish to go or is 22nd July 1946 the cut off?
Grumfutock said:
Sorry which bit of "it was an act of terrorism" didn't you read?
I notice you still don't answer the question relating to how far back is to far? Shall we discuss the Tiberias massacre? Maybe the Hebron massacre? Perhaps the Western Wall Uprising? How far back do you wish to go or is 22nd July 1946 the cut off?
I've no cut off. Context, context, context, determines all. And if Ben-Gurion can drag Biblical times into it, well..........I notice you still don't answer the question relating to how far back is to far? Shall we discuss the Tiberias massacre? Maybe the Hebron massacre? Perhaps the Western Wall Uprising? How far back do you wish to go or is 22nd July 1946 the cut off?
"it was an act of terrorism". Got that. Didn't get "it was an act of terrorism and I unreservedly condemn it!".
TheRealFingers99 said:
I've no cut off. Context, context, context, determines all. And if Ben-Gurion can drag Biblical times into it, well..........
"it was an act of terrorism". Got that. Didn't get "it was an act of terrorism and I unreservedly condemn it!".
Doesn't need saying. An act of terrorism, by the very nature of it being an act of terrorism, is automatically condemned by any sane person. Does it need stating every time? No. But if you wish to go down that route also I note that the many, many, many examples of terrorism committed by Hamas that I have highlighted have not been condemned by yourself, nor for that matter the examples in my last post."it was an act of terrorism". Got that. Didn't get "it was an act of terrorism and I unreservedly condemn it!".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff