# Israel in the Gaza Strip



## BradK (28 December 2008)

Saturday 27 December 2008: That date will now go down in history as one of the bloodiest in the sixty year conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as Israel launches airstrikes into the Gaza Strip killing some 225 people, mostly civilians. Don't mean the understate the point, but do you think this has gone far enough? 

Having lived in the UK twice in the past few years, I can say that the British media are not cheerleaders of Israel as are the Americans and even the Australian media. 

Both Jews and the secular Israeli's are now seriously questioning the terrorism perpetuated by the state of Israel, and beginning to name it for what it is. Jews seem to be fairly well taboo to criticise - but how about enough is enough on this one? Stories of border crossings? Cutting water, electricity, services, roads and medical supplies to Palestinians on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over such a long period of time? 

Of course, Hamas, perhaps the Mid Easts ONLY properly democratically elected government, is being painted as the bogey man: Here is Gordon Brown last night *"I understand the Israeli government's sense of obligation to its population. Israel needs to meet its humanitarian obligations, act in a way to further the long-term vision of a two-state solution, and do everything in its power to avoid civilian casualties." *

No sympathy for the KIDS and CIVILIANS killed. 

The American response ' *"[America] urges Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas in Gaza... " * Again, no condemnation of the murdering of kids and civilians. 

Time to dust of my copy of Edward Said's _Orientalism_ again I think. The human Palestinian face will not be shown on the news tonight - except for a decontextualised wailing which further seeks to 'Other' this suffering group of people. 

By the way, I would bet my balls in the 225 dead that very very few were Hamas operatives. 

I guess those crazy Israeli military generals will consider the whole exercise close enough for jazz, while their American backers stand back. Silent. 

Brad


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

I have met many Israelis and many Palestinians in my time, and much prefer the Israelis.

The Palestinians are a dreadfully tribal people, riven by petty hatred for the outside world and for other Palestinians. Israelis make good friends and loyalty is their strong point.

That is just my experience of them both.

The Israelis can be tiresome at times but need a land to call their own, I would support them against the Arab collective which surrounds them.

gg


----------



## Glen48 (28 December 2008)

This is some thing we have to get use to it will only stop once religion is banned.
Its been going on for thousands of years and will continue to do so long after we have passed on.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

BradK said:


> Saturday 27 December 2008: That date will now go down in history as one of the bloodiest in the sixty year conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as Israel launches airstrikes into the Gaza Strip killing some 225 people, mostly civilians. Don't mean the understate the point, but do you think this has gone far enough?
> 
> Having lived in the UK twice in the past few years, I can say that *the British *media are not cheerleaders of Israel as are the Americans and even the Australian media.
> 
> ...



The British have problems of their own.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1688


> Conservative Muslim Forum, a body set up by David Cameron to advise the Conservatives on Muslim issues and which is headed by Lord Sheikh, has condemned the government’s support for Israel on the grounds that this displeases Muslims and says that Iran has ‘legitimate’ reasons for wanting nuclear weapons. It also argues that preachers who advocate a rejection of democracy and its institutions should not be denied entry into Britain.



So lets be careful on the anti Israel propaganda. 

Hamas is an Islamist movement that is quite unlike Fatah. They make Fatah look like picnic taking Jesus loving boys with skipping ropes. 

Israel is threatened by Islamists and the only defence at times is offence.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

Glen48 said:


> This is some thing we have to get use to it will only stop once religion is banned.
> Its been going on for thousands of years and will continue to do so long after we have passed on.



That is very true. It is all in the books.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> The British have problems of their own.
> http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1688
> 
> So lets be careful on the anti Israel propaganda.
> ...




Agree with these sentiments Snake, though probably wouldn't be game to state them as forcibly as you have.

gg


----------



## sinner (28 December 2008)

Let's ask Voltaire...

Arabs
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/chapter44.html

Jews
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/chapter288.html

I posted the above mostly as a didactic larf, don't take it seriously, please. DYOR. Really got no comment on Israel vs Palestine...it just makes me sigh...and I'm Iranian.

Isn't it obvious to everyone by now that this has nothing to do with a line in the sand, them and us, who started it, I mean ****, it's so clearly about geopolitical power plays based on religious fundamentalism/extremism ideals.

Condoleeza Rice was in shipping so many AK-47s to Fatah (for use against Hamas) that they measured it in raw tonnage!

Iran funds Hisbullah, Hamas is mostly grassroots at least, plenty of Jordanian and Saudi money floating in the area too.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

sinner said:


> Let's ask Voltaire...
> 
> Arabs
> http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/chapter44.html
> ...




Good points there sinner.

The role of Fatah is more important than the role the of Hamas. For two reasons: freedoms in the Gaza will be better under them and they are not increasing the Wahabi's influence.

Thanks for the links.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Good points there sinner.
> 
> The role of Fatah is more important than the role the of Hamas. For two reasons: freedoms in the Gaza will be better under them and they are not increasing the Wahabi's influence.
> 
> Thanks for the links.




Sorry to disagree mate, they are all a pack of tinkers, untrustworthy and double dealers. That is my experience

gg


----------



## sinner (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> increasing the Wahabi's influence.
> 
> Thanks for the links.




You mean like how the neo-con crew in the US (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Gates, etc etc) is enriching the Wahhab majority populace and government in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE? Which funds Hamas?

O wait...power play again...

The neo-cons and you are dumb (sorry) enough to believe Fatah won't bite them in the ass like the extremist groups and sham govts they instigated and supported in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan have done in the last 50 odd years.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree with these sentiments Snake, though probably wouldn't be game to state them as forcibly as you have.
> 
> gg



Hardly forcibly GG. 
Ok so fatah aren't picnic taking skipping rope boys. But they are a better bunch when it comes to freedoms for their people. You only have to refer back to when the Gaza was taken over by hamas. We are talking politics here as they are political groups but one more verile than the other.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

sinner said:


> You mean like how the neo-con crew in the US (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Gates, etc etc) is enriching the Wahhab majority populace and government in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE? Which funds Hamas?
> 
> O wait...power play again...
> 
> The neo-cons and you are dumb (sorry) enough to believe Fatah won't bite them in the ass like the extremist groups and sham govts they instigated and supported in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan have done in the last 50 odd years.



I am talking about freedoms. Not morals. Freedoms are better under Fatah than Hamas as has been shown.

Forget the neo con propaganda.


----------



## refined silver (28 December 2008)

Glen48 said:


> This is some thing we have to get use to it will only stop once religion is banned. Its been going on for thousands of years and will continue to do so long after we have passed on.




Good point Glen. You'd certainly never find any massacres, brutality, inhumanity on a grand scale in non-religious regimes or atheistic regimes like Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol-Pot's Vietnam etc.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

refined silver said:


> Good point Glen. You'd certainly never find any massacres, brutality, inhumanity on a grand scale in non-religious regimes or atheistic regimes like Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol-Pot's Vietnam etc.



Good points there refined silver.
Pol pot was in Cambodia.
Mao had millions of people killed. So much for the commos.


----------



## numbercruncher (28 December 2008)

> Some rescue workers beat their heads and shouted "God is greatest".




These guys have been inbreeding for 1000+ years for sure, peace wont bring them civility.


http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/704410/israel-kills-229-in-air-strikes-on-gaza-strip


----------



## refined silver (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Pol pot was in Cambodia.




Duuhhh! Thanks. Thats what happens when you type with two fingers and your brain gets ahead of your fingers...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> These guys have been inbreeding for 1000+ years for sure, peace wont bring them civility.
> 
> 
> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/704410/israel-kills-229-in-air-strikes-on-gaza-strip




A good point, I wouldn't want any of my progeny to have my genes mixed up with a blessed few!!

gg


----------



## chops_a_must (28 December 2008)

The sooner Israel is gone, the sooner the rest of the world can get on with more pressing issues.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> The sooner Israel is gone, the sooner the rest of the world can get on with more pressing issues.



Why do you say that chops?


----------



## gordon2007 (28 December 2008)

I think perhaps you need to reread your facts. 
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24850011-5007133,00.html

"At least 230 Palestinians, most of them militants, died and more than 400 were wounded on Saturday, one of the bloodiest days in decades of Israeli-Palestinian fighting."




BradK said:


> killing some 225 people, mostly civilians. Don't mean the understate the point, but do you think this has gone far enough?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> The sooner Israel is gone, the sooner the rest of the world can get on with more pressing issues.




you could similarly say mate that the sooner all the arabs are gone , the sooner we could get on with more pressing issues.

gg


----------



## Glen48 (28 December 2008)

To me religion is a form of mental illness, just like people who play the pokies think they can win and no hard evidence can convince them to think other wise.
There is a difference between Religious wars and Dictators, Dictators are worried some one will take their power away and use forve to hold their position. A serial killer like Milat would be a dictator if he could get in to that position.
The Arabs are brainwashed for the day they are born with anti yank slogans, state run Media showing Arabic heroes plus as some one said their inbreeding from fighting all down their generations.
The Jews should try and stop tormenting the Arabic nations such as not putting up Concrete walls down the middle of the road, road blocks forcing Arabic to be humiliated.
I do know us typing away here will not change a damn thing.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

Glen48 said:


> To me religion is a form of mental illness, just like people who play the pokies think they can win and no hard evidence can convince them to think other wise.
> There is a difference between Religious wars and Dictators, Dictators are worried some one will take their power away and use forve to hold their position. A serial killer like Milat would be a dictator if he could get in to that position.
> The Arabs are brainwashed for the day they are born with anti yank slogans, state run Media showing Arabic heroes plus as some one said their inbreeding from fighting all down their generations.
> The Jews should try and stop tormenting the Arabic nations such as not putting up Concrete walls down the middle of the road, road blocks forcing Arabic to be humiliated.
> I do know us typing away here will not change a damn thing.




Very wise comments mate.

gg


----------



## chops_a_must (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Why do you say that chops?




Should never have been there, and wont last.

Defending Israel is delaying the inevitable, and defending the indefensible.


----------



## So_Cynical (28 December 2008)

The Gaza strip Palestinians voted for these clowns (Hamas) so what did they expect 
as a result of that?...not taking sides as the Israelis are war mongers and more than 
happy to perpetuate the situation.

Its funny how people struggle to see how there being used as political fodder.


----------



## chops_a_must (28 December 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> The Gaza strip Palestinians voted for these clowns (Hamas) so what did they expect
> as a result of that?...not taking sides as the Israelis are war mongers and more than
> happy to perpetuate the situation.
> 
> Its funny how people struggle to see how there being used as political fodder.




You know what I find funny?

That they wanted Palestine to be a democracy, and then after voting in a group the internationals didn't want, they crack the ****s.

That's what I find funny...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> You know what I find funny?
> 
> That they wanted Palestine to be a democracy, and then after voting in a group the internationals didn't want, they crack the ****s.
> 
> That's what I find funny...




I once associated with Palestinians in London, in my youth, and they are the greatest pack of wankers I have ever met, divisive, greedy and tribal. 

Best they leave the Gaza Strip and go to Saudi Arabia to work, and let Israel develop the land properly.

gg


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Should never have been there, and wont last.
> 
> Defending Israel is delaying the inevitable, and defending the indefensible.



Care to elaborate?


----------



## chops_a_must (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Care to elaborate?




Well... the Israeli's invented terrorism to get their way, and land which had been promised to the Palestinians following them fighting for the British in WWI.

And now, they only really have any validity and ability to survive there because of US backing. I can't see that continuing into the future.


----------



## chops_a_must (28 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I once associated with Palestinians in London, in my youth, and they are the greatest pack of wankers I have ever met, divisive, greedy and tribal.
> 
> Best they leave the Gaza Strip and go to Saudi Arabia to work, and let Israel develop the land properly.
> 
> gg




My experience of Israelis has been horrible also. Never met a bunch quite like it in the anger and violence stakes on campus.

Have ****ed up many many lectures, seminars etc that I have been a part of.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> My experience of Israelis has been horrible also. Never met a bunch quite like it in the anger and violence stakes on campus.
> 
> Have ****ed up many many lectures, seminars etc that I have been a part of.




Fair enough.

I suppose we are all driven by our experiences.

I accept your point.

gg


----------



## numbercruncher (28 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> My experience of Israelis has been horrible also. Never met a bunch quite like it in the anger and violence stakes on campus.
> 
> Have ****ed up many many lectures, seminars etc that I have been a part of.





Has there been any Palestinians involved in these lectures ?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> You know what I find funny?
> 
> That they wanted Palestine to be a democracy, and then *after voting in a group* the internationals didn't want, they crack the ****s.
> 
> That's what I find funny...



But did they really vote in the group?
Here is an article on corercion by Hamas. 
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186066387589&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Well... the Israeli's invented terrorism to get their way, and land which had been promised to the Palestinians following them fighting for the British in WWI.
> 
> And now, they only really have any validity and ability to survive there because of US backing. I can't see that continuing into the future.




So what happens to the Israeli citizens?


----------



## chops_a_must (28 December 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Has there been any Palestinians involved in these lectures ?




Yeah, it has usually involved Palestinian speakers.

Almost always confronted by Zionist groups handing out leaflets etc. And has seemed to have had a natural progression where the same people handing out these leaflets hijack proceedings before the speech even starts.

But hey, free speech isn't something they are used to, or approve of back in Israel.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Yeah, it has usually involved Palestinian speakers.
> 
> Almost always confronted by Zionist groups handing out leaflets etc. And has seemed to have had a natural progression where the same people handing out these leaflets hijack proceedings before the speech even starts.
> 
> But hey, free speech isn't something they are used to, or approve of back in Israel.



Perhaps its their intolerance to propaganda edged to make them look bad.


----------



## chops_a_must (28 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Perhaps its their intolerance to propaganda edged to make them look bad.




Nah.

The worst incident I can remember was wih a UN commissioner for Palestinian refugees.

Can't find a news article about it, but it was pretty bad. Cops called and things.

And we all know what Israel's history with the UN is like...


----------



## numbercruncher (28 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Yeah, it has usually involved Palestinian speakers.
> 
> Almost always confronted by Zionist groups handing out leaflets etc. And has seemed to have had a natural progression where the same people handing out these leaflets hijack proceedings before the speech even starts.
> 
> But hey, free speech isn't something they are used to, or approve of back in Israel.





Unfortunately Zionists cause alot of problems for average Jews as Islamofascists cause problems for average Muslims - then everyone gets drawn in - just like a bar brawl starts out with 2 drunks then morphs ....


----------



## chops_a_must (28 December 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Unfortunately Zionists cause alot of problems for average Jews as Islamofascists cause problems for average Muslims - then everyone gets drawn in - just like a bar brawl starts out with 2 drunks then morphs ....




But you don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist. 

A few jewish people I've met cannot stand Israel.


----------



## Glen48 (28 December 2008)

How much time, money, effort, Blood, killing, fighting, tears, etc has been spent on both sides since the 50's trying to sort this out?
I remember Jimmy Carter at Camp David proclaiming it was all over, Clinton ( he met a Jewish girl who couldn't get a stain out of a Blue dress) saying the same thing.
The Yanks are hell bent of supporting Israel right or wrong because the Jews run USA.
Look up Made offs Nose for the Ponzi Money and send that over to bribe some peace.


----------



## gordon2007 (29 December 2008)

Glen48 said:


> The Yanks are hell bent of supporting Israel right or wrong because the Jews run USA.





What an absolutely stupid racist statement! It's one thing to be passionate about any given subject, but being blind with ignorance is not going to help anything.


----------



## nick2fish (29 December 2008)

gordon2007 said:


> What an absolutely stupid racist statement! It's one thing to be passionate about any given subject, but being blind with ignorance is not going to help anything.




Totally agree Gordon...and you could have used half a dozen other quotes from this thread to illustrate your point


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 December 2008)

gordon2007 said:


> What an absolutely stupid racist statement! It's one thing to be passionate about any given subject, but being blind with ignorance is not going to help anything.




Ah yes. There are only two subjects that get ASF members more turgid than that hoary old chestnut, SEX.

Lemme see - RACE comes to mind. Followed closely by RELIGION.

Nothing changes.

Nothing will change.

Nothing will ever change.

Ditto.


----------



## Uncle Barry (29 December 2008)

"absolutely stupid racist statement"

It is not a racist statement !
It is not a stupid statement !

The statement by G48 was fair and reasonable.

I have noticed that when all else fails, some people will pull the racist card as a last ditch play.

So lets keep things up and debate the matter without a 'bent' in one direction or the other.
PLEASE. 

UB


----------



## mayk (29 December 2008)

Glen48 said:


> I do know us typing away here will not change a damn thing.




Conclusion of this thread in advance...


----------



## numbercruncher (29 December 2008)

> Originally Posted by Glen48
> The Yanks are hell bent of supporting Israel right or wrong because the Jews run USA.





Jews dont run the USA but its obvious they run the federal reserve .....

The current members of the Board of Governors are:

*Ben Bernanke, Chairman 
Donald Kohn, Vice-Chairman 
Kevin Warsh 
Randall Kroszner* *

Elizabeth A. Duke


and if you control a nations money it doesnt matter who makes the laws they say ?


----------



## sam76 (29 December 2008)

i just like adding fuel to the fire....

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bushlist.htm


----------



## nick2fish (29 December 2008)

Uncle Barry said:


> "absolutely stupid racist statement"
> 
> It is not a racist statement !
> It is not a stupid statement !
> ...




Ah come on Uncle, you have to admit it was STUPID
Everyone knows that the Jews lost all thier money in the Sub Prime and now its the Saudis and the Chinese who bankroll the USA


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

This mess will only be fixed militarily.

The Israelis may need to push the Arabs right out of Palestine completely and close the borders to protect themselves.

gg


----------



## sinner (29 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This mess will only be fixed militarily.
> 
> The Israelis may need to push the Arabs right out of Palestine completely and close the borders to protect themselves.
> 
> gg




Naive and dumb (sorry again, but it's true) as if that will ever work.

Just the same as if the positions were reverse, whoever is on the **** side becomes adept at guerrilla fighting, hiding in the populace which supports them and makes up their base, and generally causing havoc for the other side.

Just look at this current action, Israels biggest since the Six Day War. Hamas firing rockets constantly, ONE Israeli citizen dead. ONE. Two days later, 270 Palestinians dead. 

Who "wins"? The Israelis because they killed almost 300 of their "enemy" using soldiers pressed into conscripted service? Or Hamas because they managed to force an incumbent and beleaguered government to spend millions of dollars in military firepower and resources at a proportionally nil cost to their own military strategy? Not to mention bolstering their ranks by the families of all those firebrand -now dead- Arabs who will now willingly sign up to Hamas for life to get revenge?

For those millions they spent what did they get? A bunch of dead civilians who weren't even involved and a guaranteed influx of suicide bombings for at least the next six months. 

Certainly they did not get an increase in security for their citizens, and frankly, it's pretty f'ing obvious that isn't even what they want, no matter what they say on the news!


----------



## Uncle Barry (29 December 2008)

N2F
"Ah come on Uncle, you have to admit it was STUPID"


Again, 

It is not a racist statement !
It is not a stupid statement !

The statement by G48 was fair and reasonable.
--------------------------------------------------------

Without the money sent from the Govern, of the Unite States of America, Israel would not be able to afford these attacks on another country.

What do you call people ?
People who attack someone that cannot defend themself.

We have a situation where a group fire rockets etc from the ground in fact hundreds and only kill one person.

The other side uses advanced aircraft to kill 200 plus and wound 900 to 1000 humans or more, women and kids included.

Now in a common street fight you would call the crazy people who went mad with power, cowards, the ones who attacked and killed over 200 humans !

Would Israel attack another country if they had advanced aircraft also, AND the same help from America ? Maybe not.

They would work away around the problem/s by talking.

To look at the other side,
From the Palestine side

To be personal, as an Australian.

What would you do, 
if the United Nations 
decided to give from the Queensland border with NSW right across this country,
To China.
Because they had nowhere to place their people. 

Would you just talk
Fight for your land, your country

Myself an a proud Australia would do my best to fight and remove these invaders, no matter what the UN decided.

Kind regards and all the Season's best wishes.
UB


----------



## disarray (29 December 2008)

by their works shall ye judge them


----------



## numbercruncher (29 December 2008)

Those pictures speak volumes hey !


----------



## nick2fish (29 December 2008)

Uncle Barry said:


> N2F
> "Ah come on Uncle, you have to admit it was STUPID"
> 
> 
> ...




Hey Uncle Just imagine you are in your appartment and rockets are being fired every day around your area. The fact that only one person has been killed would not make the situation any less fearful.

Cowards are the ones firing the rockets into civilian populations

American money is countered by Iranian/Soviet money 

You cannot undo the past and Israel is not going anywhere, so they will fight and take action to defend thier citizens 

And the only statment from you that makes any sense is that they should talk ... but they won't will they


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

nick2fish said:


> Hey Uncle Just imagine you are in your appartment and rockets are being fired every day around your area. The fact that only one person has been killed would not make the situation any less fearful.
> 
> Cowards are the ones firing the rockets into civilian populations
> 
> ...




Agree totally.

These godbotherers believe that they'll get to heaven by blowing themselves and innocents up. Look what happened in Mumbai a few weeks ago.

They don't listen to peace overtures.

They are tribal untrustworthy bastards living with a 7th Century AD mindset.

I'd support Israel in this one.

gg


----------



## Uncle Barry (29 December 2008)

"Cowards are the ones firing the rockets into civilian populations"

You are totally wrong.

The cowards are, 
The pilots in the jet fighter/bombers that fly in without warning and drop their laser directed bombs from 1000 feet or less and the race away at 1000mph.

They drop their bombs on people who cannot defend themselves against an American make jet fighter/bombers.


UB


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

Uncle Barry said:


> "Cowards are the ones firing the rockets into civilian populations"
> 
> You are totally wrong.
> 
> ...




Israel had good intelligence as to where to inflict the most damage on combatants.

Thats why they win 98% of stouches with the Arabs.

Good weapons, and good intelligence from turncoats amongst the Arabs, won this round Uncle.

gg


----------



## Bushman (29 December 2008)

nick2fish said:


> American money is countered by Iranian/Soviet money




Some strong currencies going toe-to-toe there. Wonder which one will be inflated into oblivion first to fund these biblical skirmishes? 

Also Soviet? 

So far the 21st century can be titled 'Empires devalue their currencies to win skirmishes over ancient dirt'. 

Oh how we have evolved...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

Bushman said:


> Some strong currencies going toe-to-toe there. Wonder which one will be inflated into oblivion first to fund these biblical skirmishes?
> 
> Also Soviet?
> 
> ...




The Romans sorted the place out for a few hundred years.

gg


----------



## gordon2007 (29 December 2008)

The thing about these threads that **** me off is that they just become an open forum to throw around insults. You have one person who is so anti american they will take anyones side if they are also against america, no matter how wrong they are. But to be fair, you also have some who are so closed to the idea that arabs do have some legit fears and claims yet they hate arabs so much they won't tolerate anything about them either. 

It's good fun and mind opening to have a good debate with pros and cons. But unfortunately ignorance and intolerance seems to take over and these just turn into mud slinging affairs.


----------



## Bushman (29 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The Romans sorted the place out for a few hundred years.
> 
> gg




That they did - and by the time the empire fell to Odoacer in 476 AD, the silver denarius contained only 0.02% silver *! Sound familiar? Keep the citizens happy with toys and wars while they become fat little consumers feeding off the devaluation of the currency and the labour of their vassals. 

* - footnote 'Empire of Debt - the Rise of an Epic Financial Crisis'; Bonner, William, and Wiggin, Addison; Published John Wiley & Sons 2006 (p51)


----------



## nick2fish (29 December 2008)

Uncle Barry said:


> You are totally wrong.
> 
> The cowards are,
> The pilots in the jet fighter/bombers that fly in without warning and drop their laser directed bombs from 1000 feet or less and the race away at 1000mph.
> ...




Hey Uncle,
Yep and you are totally right cause the heroes are those fine upstanding men who hide their faces in hoods and fire soviet made rockets into a building where mum is cooking the midday meal.


----------



## gordon2007 (29 December 2008)

Uncle Barry said:


> ".
> 
> They drop their bombs on people who cannot defend themselves against an American make jet fighter/bombers.
> 
> ...





I didn't realise that hamas set off a warning siren when they launch their missiles from kilometres away. I didn't realise hamas built bomb shelters for the israel women and children to hide in whilst they launch their missles at their houses.


----------



## numbercruncher (29 December 2008)

And not to mention Hamas's human shields of women and babies .......

Send in the tanks @!


----------



## robots (29 December 2008)

hello,

anybody been to these areas in Israel for substantial time?

i understand Israel is full of fundamental groups of all belief's

could be great place to kick off Robotism

thankyou
robots


----------



## explod (29 December 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> And not to mention Hamas's human shields of women and babies .......
> 
> Send in the tanks @!




Their miserable patch is so small nowhere else for them to go.

But those great big Isreali tanks on the telli imply that they must be right.  The big bully is always right.   Hit big over the festive when minds are on other things too.   Hit now whilst GWB can back them.  After January the window may close.


----------



## numbercruncher (29 December 2008)

explod said:


> Their miserable patch is so small nowhere else for them to go.
> 
> But those great big Isreali tanks on the telli imply that they must be right.  The big bully is always right.   Hit big over the festive when minds are on other things too.   Hit now whilst GWB can back them.  After January the window may close.





I dont think anyone in Palestine and few in Israel see this time of year as festive ? Should they do it during Ramadan or something ?

Hamas terrorists should surrender then its war over ...... nice and easy really. Its not like Israel sits there shooting random unaimed missles all over the place like Hamas for months on end.

If NSW was lobbing missiles at us Queenslanders we would go in and woop there weak sorry arses quicksmart, why should it be different for Israelis ?


----------



## Uncle Barry (29 December 2008)

The massive Israeli bombardment of Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip has so far killed 312 Palestinians wounded more than 1,400 others

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24853901-1702,00.html

Yes send in the tanks etc.
YOU should feel proud if this is want you want.

I would have thought that after Mr Hitler did to the jewish race, that trying to wipe out another race of humans would be the very last thing any decent Jewish person would want !

Sick, is the best description of what is happening,,sick.


----------



## roland (29 December 2008)

Uncle Barry said:


> The massive Israeli bombardment of Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip has so far killed 312 Palestinians wounded more than 1,400 others
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24853901-1702,00.html
> 
> ...




so what is the solution Uncle Barry? I would think nations of other countries that had to endure missile attacks from an unfriendly neighbour would probably retaliate in some form or another....

the Palestinian Police have no control over the militants and the civilian population seems content on providing cover


----------



## mayk (29 December 2008)

roland said:


> so what is the solution Uncle Barry? I would think nations of other countries that had to endure missile attacks from an unfriendly neighbour would probably retaliate in some form or another....
> 
> the Palestinian Police have no control over the militants and the civilian population seems content on providing cover




The solution is simple. Implement UN resolutions. Ironically the solution of this problem is there, the political will on both sides is lacking. 

Give Israel peace, and let Palestinians live in peace.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

Uncle Barry said:


> The massive Israeli bombardment of Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip has so far killed 312 Palestinians wounded more than 1,400 others
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24853901-1702,00.html
> 
> ...




I can't see why they can't go to Jordan to live and leave the area to the Israelis.

The whole area with the industry of the Israelis and the mass of Arabs in a greater Jordan would be an economic dynamite.

The problem with the Palestinians is that they have been led by hairy arsed elders for too long , who lack intelligence and vision.

gg


----------



## roland (29 December 2008)

mayk said:


> The solution is simple. Implement UN resolutions. Ironically the solution of this problem is there, the political will on both sides is lacking.
> 
> Give Israel peace, and let Palestinians live in peace.




Sorry, I am still not seeing much of a solution - what UN resolutions should be implimented?

I have a feeling that many years of mismanagement and external interference of Gaza will never integrate this small area into it's surrounds. At least not with the stiffling conditions of the politically induced border and airspace controls and lack of any soveriegn freedoms.


----------



## mayk (29 December 2008)

roland said:


> Sorry, I am still not seeing much of a solution - what UN resolutions should be implimented?
> 
> I have a feeling that many years of mismanagement and external interference of Gaza will never integrate this small area into it's surrounds. At least not with the stiffling conditions of the politically induced border and airspace controls and lack of any soveriegn freedoms.




http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html


> Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.
> 
> General Assembly Resolution 194, Dec. 11, 1948
> 
> ...


----------



## roland (29 December 2008)

mayk said:


> http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html




Thanks mayk, but I believe a lot of what you have copied there is well out of date. A lot of water (so to speak) has passed under the bridge since these "resolutions"

Wiki, gives a reasonable up to date account of the state of affairs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

Happy Reading


----------



## roland (29 December 2008)

actually mayk, looking at what you quoted there, it seems that this is really not the issue anyway. I don't think that there is any doubt that Israel is not occupying Palestine.

The issue is more to do with the fact that someone in the gaza strip is lobbing missiles into Israel's backyard, and that is not going down too well.


----------



## mayk (29 December 2008)

roland said:


> actually mayk, looking at what you quoted there, it seems that this is really not the issue anyway. I don't think that there is any doubt that Israel is not occupying Palestine.
> 
> The issue is more to do with the fact that someone in the gaza strip is lobbing missiles into Israel's backyard, and that is not going down too well.




So this is just a local, recent problem, with no background or  history? Water under the bridge as you said


----------



## roland (29 December 2008)

mayk said:


> So this is just a local, recent problem, with no background or  history? Water under the bridge as you said




No, I didn't say any of that. I was just wondering how quoting old security council resolutions of occupation is going to solve a different (and yes, an ongoing) problem of people chucking missiles at you?

Israel are not currently occupying Gaza, so they are in compliance with your quoted resolutions.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I can't see why they can't go to Jordan to live and leave the area to the Israelis.
> 
> The whole area with the industry of the Israelis and the mass of Arabs in a greater Jordan would be an economic dynamite.
> 
> ...






roland said:


> Sorry, I am still not seeing much of a solution - what UN resolutions should be implimented?
> 
> I have a feeling that many years of mismanagement and external interference of Gaza will never integrate this small area into it's surrounds. At least not with the stiffling conditions of the politically induced border and airspace controls and lack of any soveriegn freedoms.




Sorry to interrupt.

The UN is a corrupt organisation containing amongst others, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Canada.

Do not look to this motley crew for an answer.

Get the Arabs to move into a greater Jordan and let the industrious Israelis get on with developing the place.

gg


----------



## roland (29 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry to interrupt.
> 
> The UN is a corrupt organisation containing amongst others, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Canada.
> 
> ...




I don't know about being corrupt, I would go as far as saying ineffectual - but not unexpected for a puppet organisation.

Personally I think Egypt and Isael should be allowed to divide up Gaza evenly, let the refugees who make up most of the population freely chosse which side of the fence to sit on, enforce proper law and order aand everyone lives happily for ever after.


----------



## gordon2007 (29 December 2008)

Uncle Barry said:


> We have a situation where a group fire rockets etc from the ground in fact hundreds and only kill one person.
> 
> 
> Myself an a proud Australia
> UB




UB, you may be a proud australian, but you type with a very strong mideast accent. You are clearly anti american and anti jewish. 

You keep asking us to see both sides of a story, but yet you only ramble on about how bad israel is. You seem to think it's OK to lob 100's of missiles because they miss rate and kill rate is horrendeous. 

It is not the fault of israel that hamas builds inaccurate missiles. The intent is still there, and that intent is to kill people. Maybe they would have more credibility if they sent missiles to army bases, but they instead send them to civilians.

I don't think too many people in this thread think israel is 100% innocent in this war. However, you make it sound as though it is all israel's fault. Perhaps if you gave factual evidence, instead of angry bantor, your thoughts would come out a bit more clearer and maybe not seem so one sided.


----------



## Uncle Barry (29 December 2008)

Gordon,
"You are clearly anti american and anti jewish."

If you only knew, who I was and who my family and friends are, 
then you would be then thinking what a dumb stupid thing I have just written !


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 December 2008)

gordon2007 said:


> UB, you may be a proud australian, but you type with a very strong mideast accent. You are clearly anti american and anti jewish.
> 
> You keep asking us to see both sides of a story, but yet you only ramble on about how bad israel is. You seem to think it's OK to lob 100's of missiles because they miss rate and kill rate is horrendeous.
> 
> ...




Its now official mates, all muslims are enjoined in the fight against Israel.

And they say the Crusades were a waste of time and effort!!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKHOS84274820081228?sp=true


gg


----------



## CanOz (30 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry to interrupt.
> 
> The UN is a corrupt organisation containing ....... Canada.






i hope that was tongue in cheek mate.

CanOz


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 December 2008)

CanOz said:


> i hope that was tongue in cheek mate.
> 
> CanOz




Yeh it was, just wanted to see if you'd take the bait mate.

Happy New Year.

gg


----------



## numbercruncher (30 December 2008)

> The Israeli offensive has sparked protests across the world, with demonstrations held in Australia, Europe, Turkey, Egypt and Syria




Mumbai, Bali , New york etc etc etc - did we see protests  ? 


The world will never know peace,it is irreversibly divided along cultural/political/religous lines, sorry to break the bad news.


----------



## mayk (30 December 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Mumbai, Bali , New york etc etc etc - did we see protests  ?
> 
> 
> The world will never know peace,it is irreversibly divided along cultural/political/religous lines, sorry to break the bad news.




What is the solution? Some might say a world government. A UN with tooth, an IMF with ammunition.

Surprisingly, a lot of conflicts are for the control of geo-locations, definitely fought on the basis of religion/culture/democracy/communism/race. 

It is all politics, clear and simple, rest is just a show to feed the masses, smoke and mirror as they say.


----------



## BradK (30 December 2008)

This is from Robert Fisk - the UK Independent's MidEast correspondent for the past 30 years - and perhaps one of the only journalists out there telling it like it is. Angry as ever... 

*Robert Fisk: Leaders lie, civilians die, and lessons of history are ignored*

Monday, 29 December 2008

We've got so used to the carnage of the Middle East that we don't care any more – providing we don't offend the Israelis. It's not clear how many of the Gaza dead are civilians, but the response of the Bush administration, not to mention the pusillanimous reaction of Gordon Brown, reaffirm for Arabs what they have known for decades: however they struggle against their antagonists, the West will take Israel's side. As usual, the bloodbath was the fault of the Arabs – who, as we all know, only understand force.

Ever since 1948, we've been hearing this balderdash from the Israelis – just as Arab nationalists and then Arab Islamists have been peddling their own lies: that the Zionist "death wagon" will be overthrown, that all Jerusalem will be "liberated". And always Mr Bush Snr or Mr Clinton or Mr Bush Jnr or Mr Blair or Mr Brown have called upon both sides to exercise "restraint" – as if the Palestinians and the Israelis both have F-18s and Merkava tanks and field artillery. Hamas's home-made rockets have killed just 20 Israelis in eight years, but a day-long blitz by Israeli aircraft that kills almost 300 Palestinians is just par for the course.

The blood-splattering has its own routine. Yes, Hamas provoked Israel's anger, just as Israel provoked Hamas's anger, which was provoked by Israel, which was provoked by Hamas, which ... See what I mean? Hamas fires rockets at Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, Hamas fires more rockets and Israel bombs again and ... Got it? And we demand security for Israel – rightly – but overlook this massive and utterly disproportionate slaughter by Israel. It was Madeleine Albright who once said that Israel was "under siege" – as if Palestinian tanks were in the streets of Tel Aviv.

By last night, the exchange rate stood at 296 Palestinians dead for one dead Israeli. Back in 2006, it was 10 Lebanese dead for one Israeli dead. This weekend was the most inflationary exchange rate in a single day since – the 1973 Middle East War? The 1967 Six Day War? The 1956 Suez War? The 1948 Independence/Nakba War? It's obscene, a gruesome game – which Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, unconsciously admitted when he spoke this weekend to Fox TV. "Our intention is to totally change the rules of the game," Barak said.

Exactly. Only the "rules" of the game don't change. This is a further slippage on the Arab-Israeli exchanges, a percentage slide more awesome than Wall Street's crashing shares, though of not much interest in the US which – let us remember – made the F-18s and the Hellfire missiles which the Bush administration pleads with Israel to use sparingly.

Quite a lot of the dead this weekend appear to have been Hamas members, but what is it supposed to solve? Is Hamas going to say: "Wow, this blitz is awesome – we'd better recognise the state of Israel, fall in line with the Palestinian Authority, lay down our weapons and pray we are taken prisoner and locked up indefinitely and support a new American 'peace process' in the Middle East!" Is that what the Israelis and the Americans and Gordon Brown think Hamas is going to do?

Yes, let's remember Hamas's cynicism, the cynicism of all armed Islamist groups. Their need for Muslim martyrs is as crucial to them as Israel's need to create them. The lesson Israel thinks it is teaching – come to heel or we will crush you – is not the lesson Hamas is learning. Hamas needs violence to emphasise the oppression of the Palestinians – and relies on Israel to provide it. A few rockets into Israel and Israel obliges.

Not a whimper from Tony Blair, the peace envoy to the Middle East who's never been to Gaza in his current incarnation. Not a bloody word.

We hear the usual Israeli line. General Yaakov Amidror, the former head of the Israeli army's "research and assessment division" announced that "no country in the world would allow its citizens to be made the target of rocket attacks without taking vigorous steps to defend them". Quite so. But when the IRA were firing mortars over the border into Northern Ireland, when their guerrillas were crossing from the Republic to attack police stations and Protestants, did Britain unleash the RAF on the Irish Republic? Did the RAF bomb churches and tankers and police stations and zap 300 civilians to teach the Irish a lesson? No, it did not. Because the world would have seen it as criminal behaviour. We didn't want to lower ourselves to the IRA's level.

Yes, Israel deserves security. But these bloodbaths will not bring it. Not since 1948 have air raids protected Israel. Israel has bombed Lebanon thousands of times since 1975 and not one has eliminated "terrorism". So what was the reaction last night? The Israelis threaten ground attacks. Hamas waits for another battle. Our Western politicians crouch in their funk holes. And somewhere to the east – in a cave? a basement? on a mountainside? – a well-known man in a turban smiles.


----------



## Julia (30 December 2008)

Brad, thanks for posting Fisk's remarks.  He is one journalist with integrity to go with his many years of experience.

I won't be ranked amongst the Western supporters of Israel's disproportionate attacks.


----------



## slim pickins (30 December 2008)

having witnessed tribalism and agression from a certain group in the middle east which i will not name, i wholeheartedly suport israel's efforts to achieve peace by eradicating people that are sworn to destroy israel.

after all, palestinians are not intrerested in peace or land. they had a very good peace plan in 1948 giving them huge territories in comparison to now. they rejected it and have kept rejecting all plans.

palestinians know that all the arabs in the world, acting together could not defeat israel, yet they still insist on figthing a losing battle.

arabs have so much land, millions of kilometers. israel is the size a few sydney suburbs, why dont the other arabs chip in and give a bit to the palestinians and leave israel alone before israel bombs all of them back to the stone age.

the arabs have no idea who they are up against. ive seen the concentration camps in poland and germany, what the jews were up against.... and they survived! people that survived that, are going to be tough as nails, and they are. 

these jews that survived europe, will never let something like that happen again and israel is the only country that can guarantee that. that is why israel will not be defeated. the sooner the arabs realise that, the better for them i think.

and dont worry israel doesnt need america to defeat the arabs. who do you think is at the spearhead of scientific research in the west. who gets all the nobel prizes. einstein, rosenbergs, oppenheimer.

if israel wanted to, it could take all of lebabnon, half of syria, the sainai, and a bit of saudi arabia, and annex it as a part of a greater israel. apart from a few resoulutions and muffled cries noone would say anything. it would becme a superpower and noone could do anything abotu it. even with western sanctions it could always trade with africa. 

israel doesnt do that becasue it wants a modest country in a land it is perpared to share with arabs. peace. (im not a jew)


----------



## slim pickins (30 December 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZIAMgjKulY&feature=PlayList&p=D98CBC8EC71210B7&index=15

from 3min.13sec to 5min.10 sec avner talks to his mother about having to carry out assasinations against fatah. gives you their side fo the story and puts things into perspective a little.


----------



## numbercruncher (30 December 2008)

> and dont worry israel doesnt need america to defeat the arabs. who do you think is at the spearhead of scientific research in the west. who gets all the nobel prizes. einstein, rosenbergs, oppenheimer.







You justify (falsely) Israel not needing America because of a couple of Jewish background scientists - ? are they going to take out the Terrorists with stethoscopes and pens or something ?

Last time I looked Israels entire military machine is US made .....


----------



## mayk (30 December 2008)

I think at the cost of few Palestinians, Oil price has risen. I wonder is there any correlation. 

Power, land and resources plays an important role in this complex world. I wonder how much is truth, fiction, reality and smoke. 

Word for the wise whenever rockets are fired buy oil contracts.


----------



## mayk (30 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> having witnessed tribalism and agression from a certain group in the middle east which i will not name, i wholeheartedly suport israel's efforts to achieve peace by eradicating people that are sworn to destroy israel.
> 
> after all, palestinians are not intrerested in peace or land. they had a very good peace plan in 1948 giving them huge territories in comparison to now. they rejected it and have kept rejecting all plans.
> 
> ...




Chill mate,  in the words of infamous Joker "Why so serious?"

You don't have to tell us what your believe in (or deny), to justify your comment. 

But your conclusion "Peace", does not sit well with your post.

Peace :


----------



## gordon2007 (30 December 2008)

Uncle Barry said:


> If you only knew, who I was and who my family and friends are,
> then you would be then thinking what a dumb stupid thing I have just written !




What could that possibly mean? 

Am I to assume that you are some VIP, gw's cousin, rudd's nephew, someone of high political position and you and your "friends" have inside knowledge that the rest of the world doesn't?

Come on mate, i know who you are. you're uncle barry, just another anonymous poster on the internet.

Do you realise that the more you post the easier it becomes to invalidate everything you say?


----------



## nick2fish (30 December 2008)

Can anyone tell me what Hamas actually wants ?
Thanks in advance

Everyone is talking about disproportionate response , but you know you don't slap a lion and expect a kitty slap back.

If it wasn't for Sept 11 would the US be in Iraq ?

What exactly do Muslim terrorists want??

The IRA terrorists wanted England out of Ireland.

What do they want????

To rule the world is the only conclusion I can come up with.


----------



## mayk (30 December 2008)

nick2fish said:


> If it wasn't for Sept 11 would the US be in Iraq ?




Hmmm let me see. What the fcuk are they doing in Iraq when none of the attackers were from Iraq. Ever asked this question, mate? They should be somewhere else don't you think?


----------



## Glen48 (30 December 2008)

After each depression there is a large scale War....will this be the next one?


----------



## nick2fish (30 December 2008)

mayk said:


> Hmmm let me see. What the fcuk are they doing in Iraq when none of the attackers were from Iraq. Ever asked this question, mate? They should be somewhere else don't you think?




Yes I do think they should be somewhere else, but I leave that and the conspiracy theories for another thread.

You would do better if you would reply to my post with an answer    peace man

cheers


----------



## mayk (30 December 2008)

nick2fish said:


> Can anyone tell me what Hamas actually wants ?
> Thanks in advance




Whatever their masters want them to do. I think Palestinians are not liked by Arabs. Arabs are just using them to provoke Israel, and make it look bad.  Similarly, Israels are using them to show its military strength to the Arab world. It is a zero sum game for Arabs and Israel, the middle man, Gazians are the "Collateral Damage" in this game of chess.

I feel sorry for innocent people they are just caught at the wrong place at the wrong time.


----------



## mayk (30 December 2008)

Glen48 said:


> After each depression there is a large scale War....will this be the next one?




I don't think so, how can it be a war when the other side does not even has a standing army. The real flash point is in South Asia, I hope something big does not trigger a mushroom cloud there. 

Interestingly, British left the division of Israel/Palestine and India/Pakistan incomplete. Both still fighting 60 years on. 

I do sometime think of a world, where there is peace among Arabs and Israel, peace in South Asia, prosperity in Africa and rainbows everyday in the sky.


----------



## slim pickins (30 December 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> You justify (falsely) Israel not needing America because of a couple of Jewish background scientists - ? are they going to take out the Terrorists with stethoscopes and pens or something ?
> 
> Last time I looked Israels entire military machine is US made .....





israel does accept help from america, it buys weapons from america and that is why it is probably the 4th most powerful military in the world. just to put it into perspective, it has an airforce 12 or 13 times larger then australia and more advanced. whilst australia has about 60 modern tanks israel has over 3,000.

israel is supplied by the US because its is cheaper and more practical. the US knows if it cut off sales and funding, israel would either make everything itself and find alternative funding.

top 5 jewish businessmen in USA have more money than lebanon, palestine, syria and egypt have foreign reserves put together.

jewish scientists, which you ridicule, are the ones that allow israel to bomb the palestinians at will with no casualties.

jewish scientists, have manufactured the markava tank, anit aircraft and anti missile defence systems, nuclear fission, the list goes on. surrounding countries cant even manufacture a car or a motorbike. 

therefore relying on the US is nto the same as NEEDING the US. whilst witht he US israel is the worlds 4th military power, without the US it is the worlds 10th military power. still enough to defend against all the arabs combined.

they did it totally alone on 1948. they'll do it again i am sure.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (30 December 2008)

israel attacking the gaza is good for the arab oil traders.


----------



## tigerboi (30 December 2008)

good posts gg agree totally..imo the likes of hamas need to be crushed before any hope of peace...also this skirmish is but a warm up to israel v iran...

there is no way the israeli's will stand by & watch the iranians make a bomb to threaten israel...tb




Garpal Gumnut said:


> This mess will only be fixed militarily.
> 
> The Israelis may need to push the Arabs right out of Palestine completely and close the borders to protect themselves.
> 
> gg






Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree totally.
> 
> These godbotherers believe that they'll get to heaven by blowing themselves and innocents up. Look what happened in Mumbai a few weeks ago.
> 
> ...






Garpal Gumnut said:


> Israel had good intelligence as to where to inflict the most damage on combatants.
> 
> Thats why they win 98% of stouches with the Arabs.
> 
> ...






Garpal Gumnut said:


> I can't see why they can't go to Jordan to live and leave the area to the Israelis.
> 
> The whole area with the industry of the Israelis and the mass of Arabs in a greater Jordan would be an economic dynamite.
> 
> ...






Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry to interrupt.
> 
> The UN is a corrupt organisation containing amongst others, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## chops_a_must (30 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Brad, thanks for posting Fisk's remarks.  He is one journalist with integrity to go with his many years of experience.
> 
> I won't be ranked amongst the Western supporters of Israel's disproportionate attacks.




Good for you Julia.

Do you also find it ironic that Jews have created a ghetto for another racial group, and destroying them piece meal? Do unto others...

As a person of Spanish Jew descent, I can go and claim my piece of land. I don't think I will. 

I also love the fact Hamas was democratically elected, considering the US' attempts to democratise the middle east. The rest of the world didn't want Bush, but we had to deal with it. I suggest Israel do the same.


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 December 2008)

I was wondering if anyone on ASF knows the difference between Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah? 

And I dont just mean politically or religously, but what is it that actually
defines each major group as unique from each other?


----------



## Bushman (30 December 2008)

GumbyLearner said:


> I was wondering if anyone on ASF knows the difference between Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah?
> 
> And I dont just mean politically or religously, but what is it that actually
> defines each major group as unique from each other?




Difference in geographic - Hezbollah is a Lebanese organisation. 

Fatah was Arafat's party from memory and his passing led to its passing to Hamas. Both are Palestinian organisations.  

Think all the groups are Shi'ite's but happy to be corrected on this or any of my assertions.


----------



## mayk (30 December 2008)

GumbyLearner said:


> I was wondering if anyone on ASF knows the difference between Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah?
> 
> And I dont just mean politically or religously, but what is it that actually
> defines each major group as unique from each other?




Hamas members prefer Coca cola while Fatah members like Pepsi. Hezbollah on the other hand does not like either, and think Iranian water is the solution to the world's problem.


----------



## chops_a_must (30 December 2008)

Hamas is Islamic Sunni, Fatah is Baathist, Hezbollah is Shia.

Which makes Fatah the most acceptable to outsiders as their claim is to a nation state, not any typically religious mandate as they are secular.


----------



## nick2fish (30 December 2008)

GumbyLearner said:


> I was wondering if anyone on ASF knows the difference between Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah?




I will say this that once they rid the world of infidels, they'll start killing each other.

Give Hamas what they want pls and stop this needless killing.

That'll work........yeah right


----------



## Bushman (30 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Hamas is Islamic Sunni, Fatah is Baathist, Hezbollah is Shia.
> 
> Which makes Fatah the most acceptable to outsiders as their claim is to a nation state, not any typically religious mandate as they are secular.




Thanks mate - knew you could be relied on to get the facts straight. 

I did not realise that Fatah was secular.


----------



## Calliope (30 December 2008)

mayk said:


> Hamas members prefer Coca cola while Fatah members like Pepsi. Hezbollah on the other hand does not like either, and think Iranian water is the solution to the world's problem.




I know some like their boiled eggs pointed end up, while others prefer the rounded end up. I don't know which is which, but it's a good reason for a war.


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> israel does accept help from america, it buys weapons from america and that is why it is probably the 4th most powerful military in the world. just to put it into perspective, it has an airforce 12 or 13 times larger then australia and more advanced. whilst australia has about 60 modern tanks israel has over 3,000.
> 
> israel is supplied by the US because its is cheaper and more practical. the US knows if it cut off sales and funding, israel would either make everything itself and find alternative funding.
> 
> ...



Mate, though the achievements of Jews are great and undeniable, your post here is propaganda. We all have many Jewish friends I'm sure, but I'll bet not many of those are Zionists.

And let's not forget what the Muslim world has given us... not so much recently, but in the past.

But to say that Israel does not rely on the US and/or Europe is clearly not true. It owes it's very existence to Britain and a Mandate of the League of Nations, it's military potency a result of western or western/Jewish capital that continues to this day.

The most important principle at work in Israel is both Jewish and Christian Zionism, not secular factors. The Zionists are just better and more in financial control of the propaganda game.

I don't know the answer, the Jews are there now right or wrong, but both sides are clearly being run by violent and hateful muppets. It is these that must be eradicated for any hope of peace.


----------



## sinner (30 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Good for you Julia.
> 
> Do you also find it ironic that Jews have created a ghetto for another racial group, and destroying them piece meal? Do unto others...
> 
> ...




Rational words lost in the hate, as usual. Everyone ignores Fisk, as usual.

Am I supposed to be surprised? Judging from the past comments on this forum predictably made by certain predictable members, not at all. Although it is obvious there a few calmer heads here. 

How did this whole most recent conflict even begin? Let's examine it. Just like examining a stock, we must take a longer term look at the "chart".

Democratic Palestnian elections, monitored by international electoral agencies. Hamas wins on the back of Palestinian anger at Fatah corruption and misrepresentation.

This is an affront neither Israel and therefore the US can stand. With the largest lobby group in the entire world (AIPAC) pushing on George Bush Jr, what will happen?

Of course they will not let it stand.

Israel immediately quarantines pay for the entire Palestinian governmental system. Teachers, hospital workers, everyone is without pay to feed their children. Not having learnt their lesson with Cpl Shalit, border roadblocks go back into enforcement spurring a whole new industry around cross border tunnels.

Condoleeza Rice bends the full force of US support for Fatah to destabilise Hamas. Tonnes of Chinese weaponry are shipped to Fatah, cash, food, intelligence all sent direct to the party who lost in a democratic election due to corruption to make sure they can destabilise the winning party.

Suddenly rocket attacks into Israel stop. Because now the Palestinians are fighting each other. Israel tightens its roadblocks after more tunnels discovered. Of course this only spurs more tunnels. 

Hamas grassroots program is clearly gaining majority support. Fatah cannot leave its core support neighbourhoods, so they begin to use their US supplied support to kidnap and kill remaining Hamas supporters where they can still venture. So Hamas starts doing the same thing, taking over Fatah offices and jailing (might as well kill em) their supporters.

Before long, as we all know, both respective parties withdraw to their core support neighbourhoods (Gaza for Hamas, everywhere else for US and Israeli backed Fatah) and seal their **** off.

So how did this all get started again?

Oh yeah... AIPAC and Condoleeza Rice. Geopolitical power play. Surprise.

Here's a Jew we all (probably) respect complaining about AIPAC.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/18/usa.israel


----------



## BradK (30 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Good for you Julia.
> 
> Do you also find it ironic that Jews have created a ghetto for another racial group, and destroying them piece meal? Do unto others...
> 
> ...




Good post Chops... here here... you are a traitor to South Africa on the cricket thread and you should be shot for that - but I agree with your sentiments on this one.


----------



## slim pickins (30 December 2008)

wayne, i have great respect for you. primarily becasue of your golobal warming opinions.  but i suppose we can agree to disagree on this one.

the jews want a little country in their biblical homeland. when they conquered it it was little better then deset and swamp. they have turned in into a decent place. israel is tiny, 25% smaller then the republic of macedonia!!! 

the arabs have land from morocco to iran and from turkey to the indian ocean. 15 million square kilometers or something. and what have they done with it? most of it is a dump. if they take back israel, the plece will go back to being a dump.

one in 5 citizens of israel is an arab. all the street signs are in arabic an well as in hebrew. they have full political and economic rights. mid east dictatorships want to distroy this island of democracy, and as a consequence they have destroyed their own countries and impoverished their people.

to palestinians, i say leave israel alone, take what you can get, west bank + gaza + get egypt lebanon and syria to give you a bit of their land as compensation for their inability to help you in the last 60 years. if thats not enough ask the people fo dubai to build you a few artificial islands, and palestine will be an excellent country. at peace with israel.

and wayne, about half the anglo american jews that i know would fight for israel if it were in mortal danger. they might trash talk it in everyday conversation, just like aussies trash talk england, but if the nigerian army occupied england and was killing and raping english people, i bet heaps of aussies would head straight over to defend great great grandmother england.

similar thing with jews i would say


----------



## nick2fish (30 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> the jews want a little country in their biblical homeland. when they conquered it it was little better then deset and swamp. they have turned in into a decent place. israel is tiny, 25% smaller then the republic of macedonia!!!
> 
> the arabs have land from morocco to iran and from turkey to the indian ocean. 15 million square kilometers or something. and what have they done with it? most of it is a dump. if they take back israel, the plece will go back to being a dump.
> 
> ...




Makes sense...to me anyway.
Sometimes you just have to give "political correctness" the big flick and be happy with calling a spade a spade.
No winnners here I'm afraid and no end in sight either 

And on the bright side Gold and Oil are up


----------



## chops_a_must (30 December 2008)

BradK said:


> Good post Chops... here here... you are a traitor to South Africa on the cricket thread and you should be shot for that - but I agree with your sentiments on this one.




No traitor to anyone. Nothing more unwestern australian than barracking for the aussie cricket team. :



slim pickins said:


> when they conquered it it was little better then deset and swamp.




Lol wuttt???

I suggest you read about the fall of the Ottoman Empire. You clearly have no idea.

The Jewish didn't conquer a thing, apart from the British media.


----------



## CanOz (30 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Yeh it was, just wanted to see if you'd take the bait mate.
> 
> Happy New Year.
> 
> gg




You're a stirrer aren't you Same to you.

I wonder if 60% of the worlds population were think only thoughts of peace and harmony we could impress that on the other 40%?

I'm going to do my bit!

Cheers,


CanOz


----------



## CanOz (30 December 2008)

Glen48 said:


> After each depression there is a large scale War....will this be the next one?




Nobody can afford a war can they?

CanOz


----------



## xyzedarteerf (30 December 2008)

no matter what side your on , nothing can justify a death of a 4 year old child.


----------



## Agentm (30 December 2008)

nike wouldnt agree


----------



## IFocus (30 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Hamas is Islamic Sunni, Fatah is Baathist, Hezbollah is Shia.
> 
> Which makes Fatah the most acceptable to outsiders as their claim is to a nation state, not any typically religious mandate as they are secular.




Generally all the players are funded by out side regional interests and only exist and continue to shoot the place up due to regional players funding, training and directing them. You cannot make war without money and training.

Then you also have the Israelis exploiting the deep divides between the various factions to maintain the chaos. 

The Palestinians incredibly continue to be pawns in the whole game happily maintaining the levels of violence.

I think 40% of the Gaza population are 16 years old or younger plenty of canon fodder there.


----------



## Macquack (31 December 2008)

slim pickins said:


> jewish scientists, which you ridicule, are the ones that *allow israel to bomb the palestinians at will with no casualties*.




What a load of crap.

"Children again fell victim to Israel's bombardment, with *two sisters dying when a missile slammed onto a donkey cart in northern Gaza.*

Since the massive aerial attack was unleashed on Saturday in a bid to halt persistent rocket fire from Gaza, at least 368 Palestinians, including 39 children, have been killed and 1,720 wounded." - news.ninemsn.com.au 31/12/08.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2008)

Macquack said:


> What a load of crap.
> 
> "Children again fell victim to Israel's bombardment, with *two sisters dying when a missile slammed onto a donkey cart in northern Gaza.*
> 
> Since the massive aerial attack was unleashed on Saturday in a bid to halt persistent rocket fire from Gaza, at least 368 Palestinians, including 39 children, have been killed and 1,720 wounded." - news.ninemsn.com.au 31/12/08.




Let's hope that Joseph and Mary got their census papers in before it all started.

JC 6 days old today.


gg


----------



## mayk (31 December 2008)

Macquack said:


> What a load of crap.
> 
> "Children again fell victim to Israel's bombardment, with *two sisters dying when a missile slammed onto a donkey cart in northern Gaza.*
> 
> Since the massive aerial attack was unleashed on Saturday in a bid to halt persistent rocket fire from Gaza, at least 368 Palestinians, including 39 children, have been killed and 1,720 wounded." - news.ninemsn.com.au 31/12/08.




Don't let truth get in the way of a good story/propaganda.


----------



## Uncle Barry (31 December 2008)

Good morning, 
Another example of " Don't let truth get in the way of a good story/propaganda." 

And then again, it just could be the truth !
----------------------------------------------------------
Israeli patrol boat rams aid ship off Gaza
From correspondents in Jerusalem
Agence France-Presse
December 30, 2008 06:52pm
Text size 
THE Israeli navy has reportedly rammed a boat that was trying to deliver medical supplies to the Gaza Strip. 
No one was injured in the collision between the patrol boat and the 20-metre Dignity, which was trying to take three tonnes of medical supplies into Gaza on day four of Israeli air strikes on the Palestinian territory. 

Israeli army radio said the boat ”” operated by the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement ”” ignored both orders to turn around and warning shots across its bow before it was rammed. 

The Free Gaza Movement, which has ran the blockade six times since August to take humanitarian supplies into Gaza, said the vessel could still sail after the ramming. 

Paul Laurdee, one of the group's founders, said the Dignity had been "surrounded" in international waters about 70km off the Israeli coast and 135km from Gaza. 

"It was surrounded by 11 Israeli naval vessels," he said. 

"They ordered the boat to stop, and we didn't. They began firing over our boat and into the waters next to the boat. When the boat wouldn't turn back, one of the naval vessels rammed the boat, but not enough to disable the boat." 

Related Coverage
Israelis consider ground offensive
The Australian, 31 Dec 2008 
Israeli patrol boat rams aid ship
The Australian, 30 Dec 2008 
Israel vows to sweep Hamas from power
The Australian, 30 Dec 2008 
'All-out war' to destroy Hamas
Adelaide Now, 30 Dec 2008 
Israel to get tough on Gaza rocket fire
NEWS.com.au, 8 Dec 2008 On its website, the Free Gaza Movement said the Dignity was on a "mission of mercy" carrying three tonnes of medical supplies "donated by the people of Cyprus," from where it set off on Monday. 

"Our people are communicating with the Israelis as to what's next," Mr Laurdee said. 

"We will try to dock in Egypt or in Lebanon, or all the way back to Cyprus. But there is doubt about fuel on board and whether they can make it all the way back to Cyprus as normally we refuel in Gaza." 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24856880-23109,00.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Attacking another ship in International Waters, (is this the action of the good guys ?)
this must be classed as the action of Pirates and even the United States surely should act and stop this low kind of action.  

You may have noticed that the vessel did not fire or threaten the Israel Navy, however the Israel Navey attacked this unarmed vessel.


----------



## Calliope (31 December 2008)

The only ones laughing are the Hamas terrorists. They provoked the Israelis with their random rocket fire until they got the result they wanted. Terrorists don't care about those killed or wounded, whether deliberately or randomly.

They have regained their status as the victims, making it a lot easier for their apologists.


----------



## nick2fish (31 December 2008)

Uncle Barry said:


> Good morning,
> Another example of " Don't let truth get in the way of a good story/propaganda."
> 
> And then again, it just could be the truth !
> ...




If you are driving your car at night and are asked to stop at a RBT do you keep driving Uncle ???

Your posts are getting increasingly pathetic....IMO


----------



## Bushman (31 December 2008)

Calliope said:


> The only ones laughing are the Hamas terrorists. They provoked the Israelis with their random rocket fire until they got the result they wanted. Terrorists don't care about those killed or wounded, whether deliberately or randomly.
> 
> They have regained their status as the victims, making it a lot easier for their apologists.




Bingo!


----------



## Macquack (31 December 2008)

nick2fish said:


> If you are driving your car at night and are asked to stop at a RBT do you keep driving Uncle ???




Your missing the point, nick2fish, the incident took place in "*international waters*" and not in Israel's own back yard.


----------



## Uncle Barry (31 December 2008)

N2F

"If you are driving your car at night and are asked to stop at a RBT do you keep driving Uncle ???

Your posts are getting increasingly pathetic....IMO"

Fish, cannot you read or understand the words, INTERNATIONAL WATERS ?
The action did not happen in the Waters of Israel or anywhere else in another countries waters, the attack happened in INTERNATIONAL WATERS !


Please do us all a favour and read the post, first before you carry on.


What has my driving a car within Australia go to with anything 

This was an attack on a vessel in International waters where your Israel Navy fired upon an unarmed vessel and THEN rammed it !

The very thing the pirates do, therefore if they, your Israel Navy conducts its self like a bunch of pirates, it surely is the case, they must be pirates.

OK, fire away with the personal insults if it makes you and the actions of Israel feel any better within your soul.
Go for it, as I have had, already I am a racist and more on this thread.


----------



## robert toms (31 December 2008)

Ironic that Israel should behave like the Nazis did with their occupied territories in WW2.
When any captive peoples openly opposed them they delved out collective punishments if they could not catch the perpetrators.
Gaza has been blockaded by the Israelis  since Hamas were voted in.Is not a blockade an act of war?


----------



## classer (31 December 2008)

robert toms said:


> Ironic that Israel should behave like the Nazis did with their occupied territories in WW2.
> When any captive peoples openly opposed them they delved out collective punishments if they could not catch the perpetrators.
> Gaza has been blockaded by the Israelis  since Hamas were voted in.Is not a blockade an act of war?





The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter. below. Following are highlights.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." 

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."


See any problems with the above?


----------



## sinner (31 December 2008)

classer said:


> The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter. below. Following are highlights.
> 
> "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
> 
> ...






Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.

Erubin 21b. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God

Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: "Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave."

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.


----------



## mayk (31 December 2008)

sinner said:


> Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
> 
> Erubin 21b. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God
> 
> ...





You have to provide proper context. Any thing out of context can be really dangerous. Improper translation of the divine scriptures can cause serious controversy.


----------



## Aargh! (31 December 2008)

Was looking forward to celebrating the New Year in the UAE but...

_Dubai: His Highness Shaikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, has ordered the cancellation of all forms of celebrations marking the New Year in Dubai emirate, as an act of solidarity with the Palestinian people._ Gulfnews.

Bugger


----------



## kransky (2 January 2009)

http://www.thestate.com/world/story/634467.html


----------



## sinner (2 January 2009)

Very interesting that link, as it correctly points out that the Hamas rocketfire began after their truce with Israel ended. Why did it end? Israel entering Gaza (breaking the truce terms) to destroy a tunnel.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 January 2009)

sinner said:


> Very interesting that link, as it correctly points out that the Hamas rocketfire began after their truce with Israel ended. Why did it end? Israel entering Gaza (breaking the truce terms) *to destroy a tunnel*.



Did that agreement allow the building of tunnels into Israel?


----------



## numbercruncher (4 January 2009)

Aargh! said:


> Was looking forward to celebrating the New Year in the UAE but...
> 
> _Dubai: His Highness Shaikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, has ordered the cancellation of all forms of celebrations marking the New Year in Dubai emirate, as an act of solidarity with the Palestinian people._ Gulfnews.
> 
> Bugger





Bet he flew out and smoked it up with some of his buddies elsewhere hey ?


----------



## Uncle Barry (4 January 2009)

"At least a quarter of the 453 Palestinians killed in the current conflict have been civilians, a U.N. agency said. Another 2050 Palestinians have been wounded."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24871308-401,00.html

When will the jewish blood lust be finished, when they have killed everybody and expaned the 'their' state with he help of America ?

And now after all the pain Mr Hilter caused the jewish race, any decent human would think the jewish race would be the most caring and loveing and have complete respect for life, in the World, well some Jewish people are, sadly most are not.

Now the tanks roll in killing all before them,
hey, its just like the Germans did from 1939 onwards, 
I bet there are some real proud jewish people now !

Come on out and tell me I am wrong, tell me that killing and wounding over 2500 people is good for your Israel and how it will free Israel.

Then hang your head in shame !


----------



## numbercruncher (4 January 2009)

> When will the jewish blood lust be finished, when they have killed everybody and expaned the 'their' state with he help of America ?





When will the Islamofascist bloodlust be finished ? When they have killed every non- Islamic person and created the Caliphate with the help of Oil money ?


----------



## Sean K (4 January 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> When will the Islamofascist bloodlust be finished ? When they have killed every non- Islamic person and created the Caliphate with the help of Oil money ?



God willing they will succeed.



> "We will not abandon the battlefield, and we will stay on the thorny course and we will fight until the last breath," Hamas spokesman Ismail Radwan said in a statement on the Palestinian television station Al-Aqsa.  Watch Hamas' statement  »
> 
> "Your incursion to Gaza will not be a picnic, and Gaza will be your cemetery, God willing.
> 
> "God is great, and the victory will be that of the mujahedeen."




I'm in a few minds on this one, but it seems that Hamas have picked this fight. 

And in war, there are civilian casualties, for the achievement of military and political aims. 

From why I've read, diplomacy failed some time ago to stop the rockets being fired into the Israeli suburbs...


----------



## wayneL (4 January 2009)

Without getting into sides, missus and I found ourselves in the middle of a demonstration outside the Israel embassy in Kensington this evening... Interesting. 

I have a few stories I might write about if I feel like getting flamed one day. 

<clarification> Accidentally of course, we were not there demonstrating


----------



## wayneL (4 January 2009)

It seems that journalist in Iraq has started a trend. LOL







http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...n-protest-against-Israeli-action-in-Gaza.html


----------



## Nyden (4 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> It seems that journalist in Iraq has started a trend. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'd love to get in there, and swipe all of those shoes! Could quite easily sell them at local markets :


----------



## numbercruncher (4 January 2009)

Nyden said:


> I'd love to get in there, and swipe all of those shoes! Could quite easily sell them at local markets :






Evidence of a recessionary enviroment mount !


----------



## Glen48 (4 January 2009)

If that was an Ozzie demo. all those shoes would be Thongs, some matching.
More evidence the recession is not as bad as we thought.


----------



## gordon2007 (4 January 2009)

Uncle Barry said:


> And now after all the pain Mr Hilter caused the jewish race, any decent human would think the jewish race would be the most caring and loveing and have complete respect for life, in the World, well some Jewish people are, sadly most are not.




UB,
So the state of israel should have respect for life but it's OK for Hamas and other arabs blow up innocent people and their homes?

If you are walking down the street and some guy just punches you in the face, if you go and beat the **** of of him, is that OK? Or is that an over reaction?

Would you instead, think that for every bomb\missile that hamas blows up and kills an innocent civilian, then israel is allowed to blow up and kill the same amount of people and or monetary damage?

Do you not understand that hamas hides behind women and children, that is why most of the civilian damage you hear about is happening. 

How would you like it if I hid behind your mother and kept shooting my gun at you. What would you do?


----------



## Macquack (4 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> Do you not understand that hamas hides behind women and children, *that is why most of the civilian damage you hear about is happening. *




You are implying that Israel's actions of killing innocent civilians is acceptable.

If as you say "Hamas hides behind women and children", *it is not an excuse *for killing the women and children.

Get the picture.


----------



## gordon2007 (4 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> You are implying that Israel's actions of killing innocent civilians is acceptable.




You could not be more wrong. 

I am stating a fact. Hamas hides their weapons in schools and shoots them from behind women and children. 

I'm not at all condoning what israel does. What I do have an issue with is how UB tends to put things in a different perspective to suite his own agenda's. He goes on to say that israel in wrong to kill innocent people but does not acknowledge that hamas killing innocent people is wrong. 

It's tragic what is happening on both sides. But to legitimise hamas killing innocent civilians and then to brandish israel as murdereous hideous terrorists for doing the same things is outlandish.


----------



## Uncle Barry (4 January 2009)

gordon.
to kill anyone is wrong, no matter what colour his skin or mind or religion.


now to you and the pro, israel thinkers, to think that to kill or wound
about 
2500 humans, including kids and women
is fair and reasonable because
4 jewish persons were killed.

If this was some kind of video game it would be rotten, 
buts its human life we are talking about.

It is sick and a crime against all humans that the World will never forget, just like when Mr Hitler killed so many jews all those years ago.

AND NOW, 
israel is only repeating what Mr Hitler did years ago.

"Hamas hides their weapons in schools and shoots them from behind women and children"

The US and Australian troops have the same problem in Afghanistan and Iraq and those proud troops with honour DON'T kill all before them like Israel and Germany did !

And what do the israel troops do.....
hid behind giant tanks and have their mates fly overhead in American made F16 fighter/bombers at about 1000mph.

Now think,
what would your isreal troops do if they didn't have these tanks to hid behind or a F16 to call as a back-up.

This is a monster sick mess !


----------



## CoffeeKing (4 January 2009)

Israel has launched a ground offensive in Gaza as 
marchers around the world demanded a ceasefire

Why don't all the marchers pack their bags and head on over to help the cause
instead of just prancing around the streets and waving flags...

Millions of protesting marchers should stop something at Ground Zero


----------



## Macquack (4 January 2009)

CoffeeKing said:


> Why don't all the marchers pack their bags and head on over to *help the cause*
> instead of just prancing around the streets and waving flags...




Smart ar-e comment from the caffeine junky. 

The cause is *stop killing innocent civilians*, you may be one someday.


----------



## CoffeeKing (5 January 2009)

link to story: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=706231



CoffeeKing said:


> Israel has launched a ground offensive in Gaza as
> marchers around the world demanded a ceasefire
> 
> Why don't all the marchers pack their bags and head on over to *help the cause*
> ...





I noticed you highlighted "help the cause" isn't that the intention...I should of been more specific, 
but I'm not in the War Zone, do you have a plan?




Macquack said:


> Smart ar-e comment from the caffeine junky.
> 
> The cause is *stop killing innocent civilians*, you may be one someday.




Casualties of armed conflict include ALL types of people, if I'm included then so be it.
But let me ask you this: 
If your Town/City came under attack and civilians were killed, 
what would you do? 

1. Stay, because it's your home, 
2. Get out, if you could
3. Take up arms to defend...

I would rather go for 3 ... but thats my choice and I would live with it.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> UB,
> So the state of israel should have respect for life but it's OK for Hamas and other arabs blow up innocent people and their homes?




Exactly how many people did Hamas kill pror to this in the preceding year? And how many of these people were living on land that was the result of evicting Palestinians?


I suppose the Jews never took up arms in the Warsaw ghetto either hey?  Damn terrorists the lot of them fighting the Germans, and supporters of Israel are no better than nazi sympathisers as it is exactly the same behaviour. 

Sentiment is changing against Israel, as the world is more awake to their actions.


----------



## robert toms (5 January 2009)

Notice the difference in media treatment between the Russian eviction of Georgian troops from the Russian enclave....and the western media backing of the Israeli incursion.
The US and its hangers-on condemned the Russian response as excessive,but strongly support Israel when the provocation was far less.
Whoever said that democracies are controlled by propaganda was right on the money.


----------



## Sean K (5 January 2009)

robert toms said:


> Notice the difference in media treatment between the Russian eviction of Georgian troops from the Russian enclave....and the western media backing of the Israeli incursion.
> The US and its hangers-on condemned the Russian response as excessive,but strongly support Israel when the provocation was far less.
> Whoever said that democracies are controlled by propaganda was right on the money.



Yeah good point robert, although not sure if situations are exactly alike. Many in the West seem to be automatically backing Israel. Probably deep cultural reasons for that which might make some sence. I'll defend my brother against anyone even if he's made a mistake. Extrapolate that.


----------



## Calliope (5 January 2009)

It is strange that Obama, who has an opinion on everything else, has no opinion on the Israeli/ Hamas war at this time.


----------



## hotbmw (5 January 2009)

listen guys, im not a jew but im on their side!!!!!!!!

israel is a United Nations member state.

hamas is NOT

hamas is a terrorist group hiding amongst palestinian civilians.

hamas is not about peace in this world. hamas's goal and existance is to kill all jews.

i think its about time hamas is obliterated. 

sorry im not for war but im just tired of these extremist. i sympathise for the palestinians and wish them all the best but there will be casualities. 

i saw a documentary on fox news yday about a defectee of hamas, he was born into hamas as his dad was 1 of the founders but he defected to USA and christianity once he saw what hamas was all about. 

strangely i also watched the new daniel craig movie DEFIANCE which was about the jews harsh treatment in belarus in the 1940's so maybe im feeling a bit sorry for them BUT in all honesty this hamas has to go!!!


----------



## hotbmw (5 January 2009)

robert toms said:


> Notice the difference in media treatment between the Russian eviction of Georgian troops from the Russian enclave....and the western media backing of the Israeli incursion.
> The US and its hangers-on condemned the Russian response as excessive,but strongly support Israel when the provocation was far less.
> Whoever said that democracies are controlled by propaganda was right on the money.




i live in Ukraine (ow so many beautiful women) for about 5 months a year and although i see where your coming from, it honestly is nothing alike. russia is a ruthless power hungry machine. they bully all eastern european countries who arent pro russia. how can u be pro russia? the quicker their currency and economy totally collapses (i pray for low oil/gas prices for long enough to cripple them) the better for eastern europe and the whole world to be honest. 

hamas is a terrosist organisation. georgia is a country trying to live apart from russia! russia handed out passports willy nilly in the conflict regions for years and took their chance to take the land they wanted.

now their handing out passports willy nilly in the black sea parts of ukraine with a view to do the same in the future. but ukraine wont be as easy target as georgia 

PUTIN OUT!


----------



## robert toms (5 January 2009)

Is it winter in the Ukraine...I think so!
I think you may have been influenced by too much bedroom mazurka with those beautiful women.
I fear that the Ukraine is adversely influenced by its close proximity to Russia,as have the Palestinians having to live next to a much stronger neighbour.
Has the Ukraine come to terms with how paranoid Russia is about border security?
The Ukraine seems to be a victim of their geography....and there are stories about them being on the way to being a failed state ?
By labelling one group terrorists and letting the others off with a clean sheet ...you are using one of the obvious propaganda techniques.
Are the Israelis shining knights on the white charger?


----------



## hotbmw (5 January 2009)

robert toms said:


> Is it winter in the Ukraine...I think so!
> I think you may have been influenced by too much bedroom mazurka with those beautiful women.
> I fear that the Ukraine is adversely influenced by its close proximity to Russia,as have the Palestinians having to live next to a much stronger neighbour.
> Has the Ukraine come to terms with how paranoid Russia is about border security?
> ...




yes their women influence me a lot on mnay issues but not politics 

yes Ukraine will have a severe recession but its well overdue as asset prices have increased by a few hundred percent over the past 6 or 7 years with the introduction to easy credit.

but hamas is a terrorist group. its not a nation.
russia is a big bully nation. we cant compare the 2. 

i guess u could say russia and israel may have some similarities but israel has all the arab states wanting to obliterate israel.

no one is calling for all russian heads!!!

russia what they did to georgia and what may do to ukraine in the future is much worse as georgia or ukraine are not hamas. not extremists. they are a young peaceful nation.

hamas is nothing

israel are not shining nights, i dont say they are. but what would u call hamas? why do they even exist? should they exist? isnt it to kill all jews?


----------



## Sean K (5 January 2009)

Just been catching up on the history of Hamas on Wiki and it quotes this:

The slogan of Hamas is "God is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Qur'an its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of God is the loftiest of its wishes."

eeeeek!

No better than most of Exodus and Deuteronomy though!!!


----------



## hotbmw (5 January 2009)

sounds like crazy extremist crap to me. does the world need this crap?


----------



## gordon2007 (5 January 2009)

Uncle Barry said:


> gordon.
> to kill anyone is wrong, no matter what colour his skin or mind or religion.
> 
> 
> ...





Your rebuttals are wrong on so many levels it's hard to even comprehend most of it. 

To compare israel to what hitler did is ridiculous. It is two completely different things. 

To suggest that hamas has only killed 4 people is well short of how many innocent lives they have killed. Just because the latest rounds of missiles fired may have killed 4 people does not mean they have only killed 4. You fail to include the amount of people hamas has injured, throughout the years. 

This is not a response to just this one one, it is a response to years of hostilies. 

The american bombs that go off in iraq and afghanistan do kill innocent women and children, to suggest they don't again is just more facts that you have completely wrong.

I have never stated I'm pro israel. I've never stated that israel is not using excessive force. 

Killing is killing! To kill and mame 10 or 2000 people is still killing. Try telling a parent of an innocent person that their killings wasn't that bad because it was only 4 people. 

You are a hypocrit UB. I will not respond to you anymore, as it appears to me you are intolerant of different views and are not capable of rational thinking.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 January 2009)

robert toms said:


> Is it winter in the Ukraine...I think so!
> I think you may have been influenced by too much bedroom mazurka with those beautiful women.
> I fear that the Ukraine is adversely influenced by its close proximity to Russia,as have the Palestinians having to live next to a much stronger neighbour.
> Has the Ukraine come to terms with how paranoid Russia is about border security?
> ...



Your comment in red stinks of racism towards white people. Care to clarify your remarks for us and what that really means?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 January 2009)

kennas said:


> I'm in a few minds on this one, but it seems that Hamas have picked this fight.
> 
> And in war, there are civilian casualties, for the achievement of military and political aims.
> 
> From why I've read, diplomacy failed some time ago to stop the rockets being fired into the Israeli suburbs...




The world expects Israel to appease the attackers just like Chrisians and western nations generally do.

With Israel appeasement will not be the same as it is with the west. I respect the fact that Israel will not appease that which is evil in its nature. 

Kids holding guns, people blowing themselves up, building tunnels, firing rockets indisriminately, what does it take to stop it? Appeasement never works. History shows it doesn't. Chamberlain and Hitler.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 January 2009)

hotbmw said:


> listen guys, im not a jew but im on their side!!!!!!!!



I am of Jewish descent, and I'm certainly not.



hotbmw said:


> israel is a United Nations member state.
> 
> hamas is NOT



Because Hamas is not a state - Palestine is. 



hotbmw said:


> hamas is a terrorist group hiding amongst palestinian civilians.



They represent the most densified place on Earth. Do you honestly expect them to go out on the plains, or understand the logistics aside from what the propaganda has filled your head with?



hotbmw said:


> hamas is not about peace in this world. hamas's goal and existance is to kill all jews.



Zionist doctrine is much the same.



hotbmw said:


> i saw a documentary on fox news




Geez... must have been credible.



hotbmw said:


> strangely i also watched the new daniel craig movie DEFIANCE which was about the jews harsh treatment in belarus in the 1940's so maybe im feeling a bit sorry for them BUT in all honesty this hamas has to go!!!




Beats me how anyone can know things like this, and not see the irony.



hotbmw said:


> it honestly is nothing alike. russia is a ruthless power hungry machine. they bully all eastern european countries who arent pro russia. how can u be pro russia?




I'd say Russia and Israel are almost exactly alike in behaviour. 



hotbmw said:


> hamas is a terrosist organisation.




Hamas is a democratically elected organisation. You might not like it, Israel might not like it, the world might not like it, I don't like it - but they are democratically elected representatives of their people.


----------



## hotbmw (5 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> They represent the most densified place on Earth. Do you honestly expect them to go out on the plains, or understand the logistics aside from what the propaganda has filled your head with?




well then of course there will be many palestine civilians killed if hamas is in amongst the civilians, in hospitals etc



chops_a_must said:


> I'd say Russia and Israel are almost exactly alike in behaviour.




maybe some similarities but israel is doing what it needs to for its peoples existance. russia could live peacefully if it wanted to, no suicide bombers from georgia or ukraine but still it chooses to be the big pig it is.



chops_a_must said:


> Hamas is a democratically elected organisation. You might not like it, Israel might not like it, the world might not like it, I don't like it - but they are democratically elected representatives of their people.




well if its not fit to run itself it needs to be squashed before its a big pest and unsquashable!

just my 2 cents. who knows what hamas can be in a few decades. we have enough extremists in the world now as it is. this is dangerous times for us all.


----------



## Macquack (5 January 2009)

With the death toll of Palestinians now at *512* and a total of *5* Israelis killed since last Saturday, when the Israeli campaign began.
-guardian.co.uk Monday 5 January 2009 07.20 GMT 

Israel is out doing Hitler's "collective punishment" ratio of 50 to 1. 
" Hitler ordered that 50 civilians be executed for each German soldier killed ".

Israel has doubled that ratio to 100 to 1.

*"Collective punishment" is not self defense.*

*The once "oppressed" have become the "oppressors"*

Shame on you Israel.


----------



## The Muffin Man (5 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> With the death toll of Palestinians now at *512* and a total of *5* Israelis killed since last Saturday, when the Israeli campaign began.
> -guardian.co.uk Monday 5 January 2009 07.20 GMT
> 
> Israel is out doing Hitler's "collective punishment" ratio of 50 to 1.
> ...




Incorrect analogy. Hitler ordered 50 civilians to be killed for every German soldier. 

512 Palestinians have been killed, but a majority have been Hamas soldiers, not civilians. Hamas soldiers are legitimate targets in the eyes of Israel, and if these soldiers chose to mingle dangerously closely to civilians, whos fault is that?

In any event, why are you punishing Israel for having greater firepower? You don't think Hamas fighters would be using greater firepower if it was available to them?


----------



## Macquack (5 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> if these soldiers chose to mingle dangerously closely to civilians, whos fault is that?




It sure as hell is not the fault of the innocent civilians.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (5 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> In any event, why are you punishing Israel for having greater firepower? You don't think Hamas fighters would be using greater firepower if it was available to them?




solution: give them F-16s and some artillery with depleted uranium shells.


----------



## nick2fish (5 January 2009)

*8*...... is the number of years that Israel has been putting up these rocket attacks from over the fence.

Doses a country not have a right to defend itself ?

Is there a number of citizens that have to die before you can react?

Actions always bring reaction and I'll reinterate....

If you can't stand the heat, don't light the fire.

All Arabs should be joined in providing opportuntity for Palestine growth and development.

Forget the past, its the future thats important for all living now.


----------



## Largesse (5 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> It sure as hell is not the fault of the innocent civilians.




yeh, was about to say...... 

based on that logic if a terrorist runs into a hospital full of people its ok to level the hospital?
nuh uh....


----------



## Largesse (5 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> *8*...... is the number of years that Israel has been putting up these rocket attacks from over the fence.
> 
> Doses a country not have a right to defend itself ?
> 
> ...




*50*... is the number of years the Palestinians have lived under the oppression of the Zionist Israeli state.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (5 January 2009)

62.

number of UN security council resolutions israel is in breach of.


----------



## roland (5 January 2009)

This is an interesting read from the Council on Foriegn Relations backgrounding Hamas and some history regarding the circumstances of their rise to influence in Palestine. http://www.cfr.org/publication/8968/#6

It is well worth following the links in the text passages for further reading.

It seems that this conflict has been building for quite some time and the overtones on the articles indicate that the current situation was contrived.

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## nick2fish (5 January 2009)

Largesse said:


> *50*... is the number of years the Palestinians have lived under the oppression of the Zionist Israeli state.




And it will be 50 more if Hamas continues to use the sword to acheive thier rightful destiny.

Interestly Israel sites security concerns as the major stumbling block to signing off on a Palestine statehood 

Crazy is it not ???

IMO the past has happened and in this case cannot and will not be reversed

So fight or talk and unfortunatly Israel is very good at one and not so good at the other.

I'm for peace and an end to the killing, but not so naive as to expect Israel to fail in its duty to protect its citizens and their right to exist.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 January 2009)

hotbmw said:


> well if its not fit to run itself it needs to be squashed before its a big pest and unsquashable!




Bloody hell you are dumb.

Israel CAN'T run itself.

Therefore, according to your logic, Israel should be squashed.


----------



## hotbmw (5 January 2009)

your dumb mate if u cant see i wasnt taking your comments too seriously. 

mate considering u used the word dumb, your "dumb" if you dont know that these extremists dont stop at israel if they gain more power.
if israel dont get tough now whilst they can it will be worse in the future when the balance of power is evened. and then the western world will be targeted by these EXTREMISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

do u want to live in that world??????????????????????????????/


----------



## Julia (5 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Hamas is a democratically elected organisation. You might not like it, Israel might not like it, the world might not like it, I don't like it - but they are democratically elected representatives of their people.



A point which seems to have been conveniently overlooked by most of the world.
"The West" has been on about spreading democracy in the Middle East.
Then when Hamas is in fact democratically elected, they just won't accept it.


----------



## gav (5 January 2009)

Julia said:


> A point which seems to have been conveniently overlooked by most of the world.
> "The West" has been on about spreading democracy in the Middle East.
> Then when Hamas is in fact democratically elected, they just won't accept it.




Mugabe was "democratically elected" too...


----------



## hotbmw (5 January 2009)

good point gav.

once again i point out the extremist nature of hamas, hezbolah, al quaeda etc....

we r better off without them!!!


----------



## chops_a_must (5 January 2009)

hotbmw said:


> your dumb




Christ you are funny.

Personally, I would rather live in a world with apostrophes, rather than Israel.



gav said:


> Mugabe was "democratically elected" too...




Not in the end he wasn't.

And he sure as hell hasn't been invaded.


----------



## Julia (5 January 2009)

gav said:


> Mugabe was "democratically elected" too...



Sorry, Gav, but that's complete rubbish.   Mugabe threw his opponents into prison and threatened voters with death if they didn't vote for him in the most recent elections.

Is this really how you see democracy?


----------



## gav (5 January 2009)

Actually the other opponent withdrew, so Mugabe was the only candidate.  Technically still "democratically elected".


----------



## hotbmw (5 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Christ you are funny.
> 
> Personally, I would rather live in a world with apostrophes, rather than Israel.




your entitled to your opinion mate as we live in a free ideal part of the world.

unlike parts of the extremist muslim world where their are virgins waiting for u in heaven if u are a suicide bomber. 

sorry mate i could never side with hamas on any issue whatsoever......

u need to understand that once these kinds of groups get more power they will do even more extreme things against the western world. these extremists hate us mate!

P.S. IM TALKING ABOUT EXTREMISTS, NOT ALL MUSLIMS.


----------



## lucas (5 January 2009)

I wonder if the Middle East and all its tensions actually serves some greater purpose? I mean in some sort of psychic sense. It's never going to stop. Perhaps it serves as a kind of educational tool to the rest of the human organism. Perhaps god is an atheist and it's its way of telling us all to steer well clear of religion.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 January 2009)

hotbmw said:


> your entitled to your opinion mate as we live in a free ideal part of the world.
> 
> unlike parts of the extremist muslim world where their are virgins waiting for u in heaven if u are a suicide bomber.
> 
> ...




See... this is what cracks me up.

What separates muslim extremism from Jewish extremism, which is known as ZIONISM and is what the Israeli state is fundamentally based on?

I don't agree with what Hamas does, but I sure as hell know what side I am on.

Why do the Palestinians dislike Fatah, the main alternative?

1) Because they are corrupt.

2) Because they are puppets of the international community.

3) Because they willingly gave up land to Israel.

4) They did not defend their people.

5) And lastly, were still crushed by Israel.

So tell me why wouldn't Palestinians vote for a group that promises:

1) Personal protection.

2) Defence of your lands and your crops.

3) To be funded only by muslim groups.

4) To be acting only in the interests of Palestinian people.


----------



## Julia (5 January 2009)

gav said:


> Actually the other opponent withdrew, so Mugabe was the only candidate.  Technically still "democratically elected".



He withdrew after being repeatedly beaten up and imprisoned by Mugabe's thugs, as were others in his party.  You haven't addressed the issue of the threats to supporters of the opposition.
Anyway, waste of time discussing this madman.  No one in their right mind would consider the Zimbabwe government an example of democracy.


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

Wasn't it Hamas whose first few months in office kept them busy pushing Fatah members off buildings? If Palestinians actually want their democratically-elected politicians to be doing that, then god help them.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Wasn't it Hamas whose first few months in office kept them busy pushing Fatah members off buildings? If Palestinians actually want their democratically-elected politicians to be doing that, then god help them.




Nah. Fatah was told by its backers to do exactly that to Hamas. Which is how Hamas ended up with a whole pile of imported weapons.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

A couple of quotes to back it up:

"U.S. funding, weapons and training for Fatah

Over the 2006 and 2007, the United States supplied guns, ammunition and training to Palestinian Fatah activists to take on Hamas in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank in a U.S. effort that cost $59 million and covertly persuaded Arab allies to supply more funding. A large number of Fatah activists were trained and "graduated" from two West Bank camps while Jordan and Egypt trained two Fatah battalions, one of which was deployed to Gaza in May.[6][7][8]"

...

"Conflict between Fatah and Hamas had been simmering since Hamas won the legislature elections in January 2006. The U.S. and Israel attempted to undermine the democratically elected Hamas[4] while strengthening President Mahmoud Abbas's position and forcing Hamas from power. The U.S., Egypt, and Israel also armed and trained Fatah for a possible 'War' with Hamas.[5][6][7][8]"


----------



## gav (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Why do the Palestinians dislike Fatah, the main alternative?
> 
> 1) Because they are corrupt.
> 
> ...




If Fatah were the main alternative and were as bad as you descibe, then the Palestinian election was NOT democratic - as there were no real alternatives to Hamas.  Not much different to Mugabe being "elected" IMO...


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

> Associated Press reported June 10 that Hamas kidnapped a Fatah officer and threw him off the 15-story building. Fatah, the same evening, just before midnight , threw from a 12- story building a Hamas man. Apparently, the difference between Hamas and Fatah is the height of buildings they throw their victims from.




from danielpipes.org


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

gav said:


> If Fatah were the main alternative and were as bad as you descibe, then the Palestinian election was NOT democratic - as there were no real alternatives to Hamas.  Not much different to Mugabe being "elected" IMO...



Nah, if there wasn't democracy, Fatah would almost certainly have won the election. Not the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Hamas are angels. But if I was a Palestinian, and had a choice of either supporting a home grown group as opposed to one propped up by Israel for their purposes, it would be a no brainer...


----------



## Whiskers (6 January 2009)

No wonder we have wars when so many people are 'Right Fighters'.

What is a 'Right-Fighter'? There are many sites but the following describes it about as good as any.



> A right-fighter is someone who struggles to win arguments, even if they doubt their own view. A right-fighter is someone who gets overly emotional or angry when people do not agree with them and their opinions or beliefs. A right-fighter is someone who insists on having the last word in an argument or refuses to back down no matter what.
> http://www.familyresource.com/relationships/communication/are-you-a-right-fighter




Whether or not they were democratically elected has nothing to do with the issue in an international context of resolving the conflict... unless you subscribe to the might is right philosophy sorta like that judge that thought he was above a speeding ticket, that a judge is/above the law.

There have been plenty of democratically elected people who have behaved badly and or criminally. Being democratically elected isn't a mandate to become 'the law'... holier than thou.

Unfortunalely, the total casualty count is hardly a reasonable benchmark to gauge any rightiousness or grounds for cease fire when fighters from one side goes un-uniformed and deleberately camaflauges themselves amongst the civilian population. How can one rely on any estimates of civilian v Hamas casualties in these circumstances!

There's no doubt corruption is rife in the region... it always has been... it's part of the culture.

There's no doubt conflict and terrorism is rife in the area... it aways has been.

So in the final analysis I think Kennas earlier post about *what people stand for, what they are trying to achieve, is more relevant.*

So *from a conflict resolution sense* while Hamas and it's alias has the anialition of Israel as their objective the present situation will continue. 

Would you just sit in your lounge room and take the damage of indiscriminate abuse, rock throwing even gun shots into your property, if your neighdour had the removal of you from not only the neighbourhood, but existance per se, as a stated objective. I don't think so. 

So one of two things has to happen for there to be any chance of peace in the region: Hamas and it's alias have to not only recind the anialition of Israel as their objective, but demonstrate it in a substantial way, then I expect Israel and it's alias will recommence peace talks.

Alternatively, If the status quo remains as is, Hamas and Palistine could face oblivion. 

*The ones I feel for the most is the young children who are being brainswashed into being suicide bombers and being held in the area by their parents as human shields and for public sympathy if they get hurt. *

*No reasonable parent would put their children in such danger no matter how important the issue was. *

*It's a measure of emotional maturity that adults resolve their problems among themselves away from and without any involvement or leverage with the children. *

I have little sympathy for men or women who sympathise with Hamas and remain in the war zone providing support services for them and become casualties.

So what is the bottom line. From a reasonableness test, Hamas has very emotional objectives that totally prohibit them from even entertaining any demonstratable long term peaceful relations with Israel.

*So what's left... WAR*... maybe to the last man standing... 

and I say 'man' deliberately because Hamas cowardly 'men' (ie emotionally immature and irrisponsible by any reasonable standard) brainwash their children to be suicide bombers to their dirty work for them on the one hand, but scream bloody murder when an Israeli bomb kills one of their children, (what hypocricy in terms of respect for their children) and also insist on hiding and firing rockets and fighting from behind their women and children as human shields.

Having said all that I'm not real keen on Israel, but from a conflict resolution perspective certain things are fundamental pre requesites and Hamas demonstrates no intention of resolution of the conflict... just emotionally immature 'Right Fighting'.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 January 2009)

gav said:


> Mugabe was "democratically elected" too...



And not to mention the left and the islamists in Iran years ago.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

Right... so laws stopping the movement of Palestinians to other, safer areas somehow end up as being parents deliberately using their kids as human shields. 

Once again Whiskers, you have proven to absorb propaganda like a sponge.

Would you just "take" the fact you aren't allowed to go to a hospital? Would you just "take" the fact your dying baby is not allowed proper medical treatment?

Come on Whiskers, have a heart. You are smarter than that...

 "Palestinian Medical Relief Society (PMRS)
2 August 2008

Ramallah, 02-08-08. During the past 24 hours, five patients in Gaza have died due to being denied access to leave Gaza for medical treatment.

This brings the number of victims to 225 people since the beginning of the siege in Gaza in 2006.

Amongst the five victims, a three-month old baby died after he was prevented to travel across the Beit Hanoun crossing. 4 other people died due to the lack of freedom of movement within the Gaza strip or from being prevented to travel abroad for medical treatment."


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> And not to mention the left and the islamists in Iran years ago.



Yes, that righty Pinochet was an awesome leader.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Don't get me wrong, I don't think Hamas are angels. But if I was a *Palestinian*, and had a choice of either supporting a home grown group as opposed to one propped up by Israel for their purposes, it would be a no brainer...



Hamas doesn't stand for all Palestinians. They only stand for the islamic Palestinians. Christians and people of other faiths now express a desire to leave the Gaza.

With Hamas in power there is no real Palestinian state. Just an Islamist state hell bent on the destruction of Israel.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Yes, that righty Pinochet was an awesome leader.



Yes, but the alternative was communism. We have seen how that fails people as will hamas. 
What is your chip man? Do you hate your life or quality of life?


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Hamas doesn't stand for all Palestinians. They only stand for the islamic Palestinians. Christians and people of other faiths now express a desire to leave the Gaza.
> 
> With Hamas in power there is no real Palestinian state. Just an Islamist state hell bent on the destruction of Israel.




They stand for the majority of Palestinians, at last count.

I have no doubt that the much shrunk and crushed West Bank will soon become its own state, with Gaza continuing to remain in limbo.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Yes, but the alternative was communism. We have seen how that fails people as will hamas.
> What is your chip man? Do you hate your life or quality of life?




Lol!

The US assassinated a _democratically_ elected leader and replaced him with one of the biggest murderers of the 20th century. A ringing endorsement against moderate socialism.

What is yours? I don't like extremist regimes in any form. And it's quite clear that you are fairly aligned to the far right...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Right... so laws stopping the movement of Palestinians to other, safer areas somehow end up as being parents deliberately using their kids as human shields.
> 
> Once again Whiskers, you have proven to absorb propaganda like a sponge.
> 
> ...



Actually Hamas is pretty good at dishing out the propaganda speedily to get sympathy. Be careful what you believe. 

http://honestreporting.com/articles...w/Special_Report_The_Hamas_Propaganda_War.asp


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

And the Israeli's censor the media, and have their own propaganda units.

My quote was from an NGO.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

Bahahaha... and I'm sure that site you linked me to is one of those units:

"In early 2001, those first volunteers turned to the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah to help build a website, develop materials and grow the subscriber base even further. Later that year, the project, having grown to become a major organization in its own right, was established as a US non-profit organization (501c3) with an Independent Board of Directors."


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Lol!
> 
> The US assassinated a _democratically_ elected leader and replaced him with one of the biggest murderers of the 20th century. A ringing endorsement against moderate socialism.
> 
> What is yours? I don't like extremist regimes in any form. And it's quite clear that you are fairly aligned to the far right...



No. Centre with a touch of left and right.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> No. Centre with a touch of left and right.




Haha... yeah... centre as in Italy in the 30s as to Germany and Spain.


----------



## Whiskers (6 January 2009)

> Originally Posted by chops_a_must
> Right... so laws stopping the movement of Palestinians to other, safer areas somehow end up as being parents deliberately using their kids as human shields.
> 
> Once again Whiskers, you have proven to absorb propaganda like a sponge.
> ...




Don't criticise me... I've got nothing to do with the decision making over there... but try puting yourself in the other persons shoes, the Israelis.

Given the long history of Hamas (and others) practice of making human bombs out of their young women and children... if you were an Israeli soldier and a heavily shrouded person supposidly with a sick child came rushing towards you, how could you be sure it isn't another human bomb. I think once (or hundreds) times bitten they are now very wary and wise or at least cautious... and who could blame them.

Re being cut off from this and that... they should have thought about that when Hamas continued firing rockets into israel even after being warned that a military response, war would result if they persisted. 

They had reasonable warning of war to evacuate Hamas concentrated areas, but whether they were forced to stay by Hamas or they had faith in Hamas calling Israels bluff... and lost, so which ever way you look at it, they only have themselves to blame for putting their children in danger... but that's really contridictory since they have a cowardly policy of brainwashing children to be their human bombs anyway.

Again I feel very sorry for all palastine children and the way they are being abused and endangered by their parents and aspects of their culture.

But when their parents continue to make bad decisions about their childrens welfare they only have themselves to blame.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

What part of no freedom to move don't you understand?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Haha... yeah... centre as in Italy in the 30s as to Germany and Spain.



I am interested in what this means.


----------



## wayneL (6 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> Don't criticise me... I've got nothing to do with the decision making over there... but try puting yourself in the other persons shoes, the Israelis.
> 
> Given the long history of Hamas (and others) practice of making human bombs out of their young women and children... if you were an Israeli soldier and a heavily shrouded person supposidly with a sick child came rushing towards you, how could you be sure it isn't another human bomb. I think once (or hundreds) times bitten they are now very wary and wise or at least cautious... and who could blame them.
> 
> ...




I don't think it's reasonable to criticize others for "right fighting" and to then take such a hard line. Cognitive bias there.


----------



## Whiskers (6 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> I don't think it's reasonable to criticize others for "right fighting" and to then take such a hard line. Cognitive bias there.




I'm not right fighting the issue, rather highlighting the issues involved in conflict resolution. 

The very first issue before you can even start to resolve a conflict is to recognise the other party's concerns... the highest of the high concerns in this case is the right (of Israel) to exist. 

The next major issue as highlighted earlier is to participate in the conflict resolution process with a high degree of emotional maturity and the big issue there is to have enough emotional maturity to be responsible enough to leave the children out of the conflict and the resolution process... to keep them safe.

Surely buy any reasonable measure of humanity and civilised laws, those parents who allow, or worse, train children to be human bombs and use them as human shields are grossly neglegant and guilty of child endangerment, child abuse and or murder.

There is no issue of 'Right Fighting' as a bad behavioural trait in highlighting this... simply right and wrong in law and humanity as our police and social workers face all the time.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

Hang on. You keep banging on about this human shield bollocks, when they don't have freedom to extricate themselves from danger zones.

Yet... you implicitly find this acceptable:

"Soldiers at checkpoints consistently stop ambulances and patients. The Palestinian Red Crescent Society, has reported 112 deaths and 35 stillbirths as a result of preventing medical personnel and patients from crossing checkpoints. The World Health Organization deplores “the incidents involving lack of respect and protection for Palestin-ian ambulances and medical personnel (…) as well as the restrictions on movement imposed on them by Israel, the occupying power, in violation of international humanitarian law”."

So who cares about children when they have such a low price Whiskers?

And when you talk about knowing what each side wants, how about this?

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion

"There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
-- David Ben Gurion

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon


----------



## wayneL (6 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> I'm not right fighting the issue, rather highlighting the issues involved in conflict resolution.
> 
> The very first issue before you can even start to resolve a conflict is to recognise the other party's concerns... the highest of the high concerns in this case is the right (of Israel) to exist.
> 
> ...



But If I start to disagree with your opinion, you will start to "right fight" as you are starting to do with your post.

You raise some valid points, but in doing so, ignore far more than you raise, including the entire post 1948 history of the area. Perhaps your views are the result of propaganda? I don't know, and I suggest neither do you. We can only get information from the biased (from either viewpoint) politicized media and where ever else we can scrounge it from the net; most of it polarized.

Here's an example. During WW2, European folks regularly endangered children's lives through their resistance activities. Families sheltering Jews, assisting the resistance, resistance fighters hiding amongst the general populace etc. Many children were killed an injured because of these activities.

Perhaps in our culture, suicide bombing is repugnant, and it is when used against civilians. This we can validly criticize. But the rest is behaviour all hiumans will resort to when faced with a bullying oppressor. It's very easy to be judgemental from the safety of your Officeworks chair and Dell computer, but I know things would be different if things were different and you were a Palestinian... or a French or Dutch resistance fighter in WW2.


----------



## Whiskers (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Hang on. You keep banging on about this human shield bollocks, when they don't have freedom to extricate themselves from danger zones.
> 
> Yet... you implicitly find this acceptable:




No I don't! 

There's a heirachy in the issues to address conflict resolution... a couple of the highest mentioned above... none of which implies anything of the sort.

As I also mentioned above some of the palastine people whether by misfortune or collusion with Hamas only have themselves or at least their 'authorities' or Hamas to blame for their prediciment and the endangerment of their children. 

That's a simple matter of behavioural and social science. You are primiraily responsible for your children. Israel didn't make them brainwash children to be human bombs and as far as I'm aware Israel doesn't reciprocate this absurdly abusive behaviour.

I'd suggest that's a large reason why palastine freedom of movement has been limited inside Israel and why Israeli soldiers are loath to get involved with sorting out human bombs from innocent civilians during war. 

If you're referring to since the war started...



Whiskers said:


> Re being cut off from this and that... they should have thought about that when Hamas continued firing rockets into israel even after being warned that a military response, war would result if they persisted.
> 
> They had reasonable warning of war to evacuate Hamas concentrated areas, but *whether they were forced to stay by Hamas or they had faith in Hamas calling Israels bluff*... and lost, so which ever way you look at it, they only have themselves to blame for putting their children in danger... but that's really contridictory since they have a cowardly policy of brainwashing children to be their human bombs anyway.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (6 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> No I don't!



Yes you do.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> That's a simple matter of behavioural and social science. You are primiraily responsible for your children. Israel didn't make them brainwash children to be human bombs and as far as I'm aware Israel doesn't reciprocate this absurdly abusive behaviour.



You just don't get it do you Whiskers.

They CAN'T leave! That's not Hamas' fault, or any other Palestinians.

It is the result of Israeli actions, and Israeli actions alone. Long before Hamas came to power.

Israel doesn't have child suicide bombers, it doesn't need to. But it's actions directly lead to the deaths of children as a result of them not receiving health care. How on Earth is that any better?

If Israel wont allow people in its enforced ghetto to receive health care, how is there ever going to be peace?

Before you get into big picture stuff, if you can't resolve the most simple of simple things, and a human right, you can kiss anything else goodbye.


So no, in Palestine you don't have the life of your child as one of your choices. Choices made regarding a child's right to live are in Israeli hands. That is where your premise is flawed.


----------



## Whiskers (6 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Yes you do.




It might be how you interpret it, but you cannot know what I endorse... just what you think I think... dare I say because you are still contaminating my point about the conflict resolution process and issues with your judgemental interpretations of my position.

So if you want to be clear about what I believe, ask a precise question and I'll give you an answer which does not require interpreting anything. 

Back to the process and issues, I agree, there is a lot of historical stuff that still has raw nerves on both sides, but in getting a resolution to the conflict both sides have to focus on the here and now put aside their judgemental positions and get first things first and come to realise and accept a process to work by and a heirachy of issues to be addressed of which these past issues would be some to put on the list.

But, there has been a number of processes in the past and could be again tomorrow... BUT FOR the very highest issue in any conflict resolution process... to recognise the other parties right to exist.

UNLESS both parties accept this as a prerequisate, then the conflict resolution process per se has not even begun and has nowhere to go. All that has been happening is quite a bit of horse trading to get both sides to even come to the table to start with. Unless that is done in good faith by both parties the conflict resolution process cannot start... hence from a behavioural and managerial perspective I can understand Israels frustration with Hamas and treating them with a great deal of contempt, while they still call for the inialiation of Israel.

Of course once a state of war exists then the rules change quite a bit... and a cease fire has to be agreed and respected before the whole process can start again.

*Chops* contrary to your assertion, in fact I do get it. I've passed a course not only in conflict resolution, but Group Conflict Resolution, ie the facilitation of many people at a time through the conflict resolution process. 

Chops, what if the palastine authorities and Hamas had put more resources into hospitals in their own areas rather than spending the money on ancient very inaccurate rockets and the like in a futile attempt to effectively do little more than antaganise Israel? 

I'm just putting a question of logic, reasonableness, to you. It's a matter of the quality of choices people make for their circumstances. The Palastine authorities are responsible for those sort of decisions that they made themselves. 

Since I'm talking about proceedures and issues, the 'Right Fighter' behavioural pattern is part of a larger pattern known as 'Toxic People'. 



> Toxic people drain you, sap your energy. Everything is about them. They see the world from eyes that see only themselves and how everything relates to them and their needs. No one else's feelings or thoughts ever carry much weight. True empathy does not exist.
> 
> There are many different types of "toxicity" but they all in some way drain you. Toxic people have not learned to fulfill themselves and have little self love so they in essence must "steal" your energy. Unnecessary drama, mountains made out of molehills, rage or blow ups over inconsequential things...
> 
> http://www.healthyparenting.net/spirit/toxic.php




Now having pointed that out many politicans everywhere have some degree of toxic characteristics. Certainly the extremist's of the cultures on both sides in that region are very toxic. 

I'm in no way condoning anything Israel has done, but given their resources and alias, do you really think the Palastine authority have made good decisions for the benifit of their citizins over the years... particularly provoking militarialy, someone who is no small fry but is aligned with the world's only super power.

Wouldn't they have been much smarter to look after their people and procreate children rather than blowing them up... teaching them to be intellectually smarter to win friends to politically resolve their problems rather than their toxic martyr indoctrination which is exponentially reducing their number compared to their opposition? 

But if you have a reasonable comprehension of the notion of Right Fighters and Toxic people generally, you would realise that their intellect and reasoning capacity is limited by their psychological disorder. 

They tend to be very judgemental, attack issues personally rather than expressing more in the 'third person', and blame everyone but themselves for their problems.

Just ignoring the rights and wrongs for the moment, which is the smartest strategy? Do you really believe the Palastine authorities could not have made much better decisions for their own people?

In the news this morning it has been reported that Israel let a number of  humanitarian aid trucks through, but no one came to pick the stuff up. Hamas just kept firing rockets so they eventually closed it off again. *That doesn't demonstrate much empathy by Hamas for their own injured civilians and children, let alone good judgement to at least cease fire while the aid trucks were let in. *

The point I'm trying to make from a conflict management point of view is put yourself in the other party's shoes for a minute and think about what you would do in the same circumstance.

Chops, what do you suppose Israel would do, or more to the point what would you do, if a new Palestine Authority denounced past policy of annihilation of Israel and ceased fire?


----------



## wayneL (6 January 2009)

Well this is quite a laugh!

We have someone who fancies himself as a conflict resoluter who is actively escalating conflict in this thread with a pious, arrogant and biased attitude.

I am amused! LOLOL

...you actually passed this course? Good grief!!!!


----------



## Whiskers (6 January 2009)

I'd like to highlight that according to this mornings news Hamas is again emphasising that they have many, I think the report was talking about thousands of people ready to die for their cause... the annihilation of Israel.

Seriously, how can you take their hyprocitical hysteria in their own press releases about their so called horrific child casualties in the war seriously with their holier than thou ranting about the selfrightiousness of their cause and all their martyrs ready to die for their cause.

*So, it seems if one of their children could infiltrate Israel as a human bomb they died a martyr, but if the child is killed by Israeli soldiers in a state of war before they can infiltrate Israel as a human bomb it's a criminal act by Israel that their child died*.  .

Talk about frigin unreasonable people.


----------



## Whiskers (6 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Well this is quite a laugh!
> 
> We have someone who fancies himself as a conflict resoluter who is actively escalating conflict in this thread with a pious, arrogant and biased attitude.
> 
> ...




With all due respect Wayne, are you interested in playing the issue or the man. 

I emphasise the point I made earlier that you have not yet grasped.




Whiskers said:


> I'm not right fighting the issue, rather highlighting the issues involved in conflict resolution.
> 
> *The very first issue *before you can even start to resolve a conflict is to recognise the other party's concerns... the highest of the high concerns in this case is the right (of Israel) to exist.
> 
> ...




Wayne, I'd prefer not to get into judgemental bashing of forum members, but there is clear demarcation of what is acceptable, right, wrong or good judgement when discussing an unrelated party's behaviour as this thread intends.

*I'll gladly answer any question you have and provide further references about the process and the issues if you would just nominate any issue or part of the process I have discussed that you may have a problem with. *

For example, the welfare of the children in this conflict.


----------



## Julia (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> "We must expel Arabs and take their places."
> -- David Ben Gurion
> 
> "There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
> ...



Both sides have and are behaving in an indefensible way.  And yes, of course, they should be mature and reasonable and obey all the rules of conflict resolution, each side making concessions, and leave the table with a valid plan for the future.  That's how it works in theory.

But if you were Palestinian forced to make way for the land of Israel from 1948, I expect you'd feel less than OK in the face of attitudes such as are exemplified in the quotes above.

Of course suicide bombings, whether by adults or children, are completely unacceptable.   And I'm not making excuses for a single act of violence in this whole horrible mess.  But maybe if Palestinians had the resources of Israel including its mighty American backing, they would not resort to their rocket attacks and suicide bombings.

I don't find what's happening on either side acceptable, but just don't feel you can ignore the historical background.


----------



## wayneL (6 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> With all due respect Wayne, are you interested in playing the issue or the man.
> 
> I emphasise the point I made earlier that you have not yet grasped.
> 
> ...



How pompous.

Whiskers, what you have failed to grasp is that with all your conflict resolution mumbo jumbo, is that you have stumbled at your own first hurdle, in judging by your own set of values what is right or wrong. In so doing you are kicking along the conflict in this thread with your comprehensive bias and sanctimonious judgements.

I submit that:

a/ you have no idea of the issues in the whole conflict

b/ you have no idea what you are doing with regards conflict resolution

For a true unbiased approach, look to Julia's post one above this one. I would give the job to Julia and make sure you were at the antipodes of the conflict.

If you want to take a view as you have, fine. That's what everybody is doing in this thread. But to waffle about conflict resolution while doing so is ludicrous.


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

Reading this it is impossible not to be struck by the similarity between this war of words and the actual mess over there being fought with explosives.

If a fight between two prizefighters in the ring has an end and a point to it, it is acceptable to back one side over the other. But if the fight is in the street, stopping traffic, breaking windows, hurting innocents, and there is only enmity, stupidity, and hatred - in other words it is pointless, then I fail to understand how onlookers can take sides and still consider themselves better than the antagonists.

The Middle East problem is a pointless exercise displaying the very worst excesses of human cruelty and stupidity. In my view, taking sides is not only illogical, but even more stupid since we should know better.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> *Chops* contrary to your assertion, in fact I do get it. I've passed a course not only in conflict resolution, but Group Conflict Resolution, ie the facilitation of many people at a time through the conflict resolution process.
> 
> Chops, what if the palastine authorities and Hamas had put more resources into hospitals in their own areas rather than spending the money on ancient very inaccurate rockets and the like in a futile attempt to effectively do little more than antaganise Israel?
> 
> I'm just putting a question of logic, reasonableness, to you. It's a matter of the quality of choices people make for their circumstances. The Palastine authorities are responsible for those sort of decisions that they made themselves.




You honestly, honestly cannot be as unaware as what you have just posted.

You still clearly DO NOT get it.

It's irrelevant what Hamas or other Palestinians should have, would have, could have done.

What is relevant is Israel's continuing and ongoing interference in the health care of the people it is occupying!!! In light of that, IT DOES NOT MATTER how good health care is, because you probably can't get to it anyway. You simply have absolutely no clue the extent of check points and other obstructions that mean you may not be able to move 2 or 3 blocks to get to treatment.

And it is absolutely cretinous, and completely laughable to argue for the obstruction of this fundamental human right. Seriously, I cannot comprehend how someone could be that below par of a human and to pass it off as a "well Palestinians are to blame for their ambulances being stopped" when the issue is one of access to healthcare in their own land, which is interfered with by a foreign country.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> Chops, what do you suppose Israel would do, or more to the point what would you do, if a new Palestine Authority denounced past policy of annihilation of Israel and ceased fire?




Look in my own backyard as to reduce actions that indicate exactly the same in reverse perhaps?


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

No-one who sides with either warring partner in this mess has "got it". Making good points serves merely to highlight how correct and incorrect both sides are at one and the same time. The only helpful position is to advance a platform for the cessation of hostilities and try to engage both sides in meaningful dialogue. It goes without saying that this is almost impossibly difficult, but it is the only humane course of action for the rest of us.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

Lucas.

Like I have said many times throughout this thread, I do not support Hamas.

My position starts with upholding basic human rights. And in that, lies a way forward. It just happens to be that Israel impacts more on Palestinian lives in this regard than vice versa.


----------



## Whiskers (6 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> How pompous.
> 
> Whiskers, what you have failed to grasp is that with all your conflict resolution mumbo jumbo, is that you have stumbled at your own first hurdle, in judging by your own set of values what is right or wrong.




I have asked you to be specific about that which you dissagree but you continue to talk critically in generalisations. 

It would be very helpful if you would be specific about that you consider I have judged what is right or wrong by my own set of values. I have explained that certain behaviours are wrong, totally unjustifiable in any circumstance by law and international standards. Please specify say which ones you dissagree with.



> In so doing you are kicking along the conflict in this thread with your comprehensive bias and sanctimonious judgements.




 So, what was happening for those umptheen posts before mine... and what are you doing exactly? 

Are you interested in at least a theoretical Conflict Resolution process for this issue or just bagging Conflict Resolution generally?

I'm concerned at your agressive and dominant demeanor, being disruptive to the process. (Rule number one is not to allow any of the participants become domineering or disruptive to the process.) 

I'll repeat again... specify a point you want to discuss and I'll post independant references for every detail to substantiate my statements. You could do like wise to justify the integrity of yours also.

If you would kindly notice, I as did Julia, addressed the issues not attacked the messenger as you continue to do.

I've invited you to participate in defining a possible resolution process and issues... so let's get on with that eh.



> I submit that:
> 
> a/ you have no idea of the issues in the whole conflict




That's usually the case with a conflict resolution facilitator or counsellor. They don't need to know all the issues at first. What they do need to know is what is acceptable behaviour (particularly in relation to children in the conflict) and what is not in the context of it's impact on getting the atmosphere set to begin the process. 



> b/ you have no idea what you are doing with regards conflict resolution




I respectfully dissagree and suggest that you are passing unknowledgable, judgemental crititism thereby being disruptive to the process.  

The process will work much better if people refrain from name calling and suggest a reasonable alternative or specify the particular issue you refer to rather than making critical, ambigious generalisations.



> For a true unbiased approach, look to Julia's post one above this one. I would give the job to Julia and make sure you were at the antipodes of the conflict.




I know Julia has had similar training for counselling for a somewhat different environment than me, but collectively, I'm sure we could colloberate in a 'phantom' Conflict Resolution Process for this thread since you are not displaying any intention to, and letting your preconceived notions about me interfere with your better judgement.

There seems to be a number of people who could take the phantom position of each side.

Just to start with the issues Julia mentioned, I think we pretty much agree on the position re the children.

I also agree and have said that the historical background can't be ignored... as I mentioned earlier those issues have to be discussed during the process.

Re the 1948 issues though, I expect there are few people whom were alive then and have recollection of those events still alive. So while there are teritorial issues there still, in terms of the current generation the more immediate and higher priority issues would most likely be more to do with living standards, health care and the like.



> If you want to take a view as you have, fine. That's what everybody is doing in this thread. But to waffle about conflict resolution while doing so is ludicrous.




To clarify yet again, the examples I have cited relate firstly to the questionable quality of the decision making of many of the palastine people and leadership in particular since they are on the most suffering end of the stick atm and trying to get people, like us on the thread, to stand in the other party's (Israels) shoes for awhile to try and see their perspective in the context of what is generally recognised as the ground rules for successful conflict resolution.

The harsh reality is that Hamas has provoked a military conflict that they cannot win and if the status quo remains the same as it's dire straits for the palastine people. 

*I ask you if you were a palastine with the objectivity that most outsiders have, would you keep ranting 'destroy Israel' and sending martyrs and rockets into Israel and reasonably expect Israel to do anything different to what they have done.*

The raelity is while Israel has the upper hand and Hamas continues being extremely provacative with these sort of statements Israel is not going to ease off. Thats not taking sides, but stating the obvious behavioural obstacles of the protaganists.

The point is what are the obvious immediate steps Hamas can take to help facilitate a cease fire, allow humanitarian aid in (which was reported Israel tried to do today) and get to the negotiating table?  There are some, but as late as today they have resoundingly expressed the desire to do the complete opposite. 

At what point do they accept some responsibility for what they helped bring upon themselves.


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

I believe you, chops. Don't let me stop you making good points. But if it's a solution we are all after, it won't come about as the result of winning this particular war. There's no Hitler in this mix - no pure evil. You might say that the winner (if there ever is one) will be the moral loser by dint of having won. Recipe for disaster even if you completely obliterate your enemy.

Tiring though it might be to hear after all this time, John Lennon's attack on war itself and not the protagonists does seem to be the more enlightened approach.


----------



## Julia (6 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> Re the 1948 issues though, I expect there are few people whom were alive then and have recollection of those events still alive. So while there are teritorial issues there still, in terms of the current generation the more immediate and higher priority issues would most likely be more to do with living standards, health care and the like.



Whiskers, with respect, although to us so far away and without the stress of generations of conflict, it may seem 'sensible' and 'reasonable' to dismiss the impact of the 1948 issue, I think it's something ingrained into the collective psyche of the Palestinian people.

  You have only to consider the views of our own indigenous people, whom I doubt will ever change their view that they were invaded, to draw a small level of comparison.


----------



## wayneL (6 January 2009)

Whiskers,

Too long. I'm not reading through reams of crap of you trying to substantiate an untenable position.

Crystallize it in a few sentences please.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

And containing the behaviour of 1948 to that time is pretty ignorant. It's not as if Israel isn't continuing to steal land without recourse or compensation now...


----------



## Bushman (6 January 2009)

Julia said:


> Whiskers, with respect, although to us so far away and without the stress of generations of conflict, it may seem 'sensible' and 'reasonable' to dismiss the impact of the 1948 issue, I think it's something ingrained into the collective psyche of the Palestinian people.
> 
> You have only to consider the views of our own indigenous people, whom I doubt will ever change their view that they were invaded, to draw a small level of comparison.




The Balkans is another region that springs to mind as being periodically destabilised due to heady mix of religion, cultural memory and the strenght of its oral and aural traditions. 

Serbian nationalists still used the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 as the justification for their outrageous 'ethnic cleansing' Kosovar war at the end of the 20th century.


----------



## mayk (6 January 2009)

Julia said:


> Whiskers, with respect, although to us so far away and without the stress of generations of conflict, it may seem 'sensible' and 'reasonable' to dismiss the impact of the 1948 issue, I think it's something ingrained into the collective psyche of the Palestinian people.
> 
> You have only to consider the views of our own indigenous people, whom I doubt will ever change their view that they were invaded, to draw a small level of comparison.




Forget 1948, Israel existence is promised by their God centuries ago. That is the whole essence of existence of Israel, they are simply taking what is promised to them. 

I think Israel blew its chance when Fateh was in power. Now they have to demilitarize Hamas, and then negotiate with them. It took around 30 years to do that with Fateh, with the advancement in science and technology, it will take only 15 or so years to do that with Hamas. 

I do not understand why Israel not purse the great wall of china approach? Fit the latest state of the art anti-missile on their border? It would be simple I assume. But then again they have to first define the border and here lies the problem. There borders will always be occupied by arabs, no matter what they do, so I assume this problem can never be solved. It is what the scientist call NP-Hard problem.


An interesting point is the objective of Israel in this war. If the objective is to stop missile attack, then I am afraid after all this, if one rocket lands in Israel, they would not be victorious.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

mayk said:


> I think Israel blew its chance when Fateh was in power. Now they have to demilitarize Hamas, and then negotiate with them. It took around 30 years to do that with Fateh, with the advancement in science and technology, it will take only 15 or so years to do that with Hamas.




Indeed.

I could not work it out at the time. Fatah were moderate and secular, and were prepared to give Israel a lot more than any other group at the time.

Instead, they chose to humiliate them, disempower them and infiltrate them.

All this proved to do was radicalise and popularise the radicals.

In a lot of ways, Israel has only itself to blame in the rise of Hamas, as they chose to virtually eliminate a viable, moderate and sensible counterpart that was against violence.


----------



## wayneL (6 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Forget 1948, Israel existence is promised by their God centuries ago. That is the whole essence of existence of Israel, they are simply taking what is promised to them.




Hence Christian Zionism and the support of the American religious right... all tied up with prophesy concerning the second coming of Christ.


----------



## Bushman (6 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Forget 1948, Israel existence is promised by their God centuries ago. That is the whole essence of existence of Israel, they are simply taking what is promised to them.




I would say that the part of the essence of Israel is the 500 years of vicious pogroms pursued against the 'usurers' in Europe by the (un)Holy Roman Empire. This very Catholic distrust of Jewry then morphed into 'National Socialism' as Germanic society adopted fascism. This had barbarous consequences for the European Jewry. 

'Never again' is as much their creed as any biblical scripture. 

The unfortunate consequence of this medieval economic power play is the displacement of the Palestinian population. Hence the Palestinians live without hope and their young men act as people living without hope have always done. 

There is no solution to this 'battle for survival' amongst the old guard. Maybe a new generation of politicians will negotiate a more lasting peace in the future? I have hope for the part Obama might play in this process.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

I think Obama may actually be worse, honestly...


----------



## slim pickins (6 January 2009)

if we are looking at the causes of problems in the middle east all we have to do is read "uncle barry's" posts. 

we have a political ideology (palestinain leadership) built on irrational illogical misinformed opinions, similar to uncle barry's, that are leading its poeple to humiliation and defeat.

israel has no bloodlust, it wants peace. israel had killed more people recently because the semi literate palestinian population is incapable of producing the weapons needed to implement its political ideology.

the palestinians are extremely lucky to have israel as an adversary. they are being treated with kid gloves.israel is always fighting with one hand tied behind its back due to human rights constraints.

if the palestinians were up against the germans, russians, chinese or any number of european nations, they would probably have been wiped out back in 1948. thats just how europeans deal with competing land claims.

i bring this up because of uncle barry's distasteful comparison of israel to hitler. a man he calls MR hitler. 

read a bit about WWII barry, see what the jews lived through. let me try to explain it. even though you may not be able to comprehend.

the moment the israeli army comes into gaza and west bank. seperates the men and women. kills the women in massive gas chambers, works the men to exhaustion in order to produce goods for export. and slowly starts killing the males off one by one who fail to meet their production quota, then afetr abotu 2 years you find that out of a population of 4 million palestinians there is only about 50,000 left. and those that are left are being hunted down by specialist tracking squads to ensure there is noone left..... then you can start complainign that israel is like hitler. 

the truth is.... you mock israel for having superior weapons. well if it were not for those weapons they would suffer a fate worse then WWII at the hands of people like hamas.

peace in israel/palestine!


----------



## disarray (6 January 2009)

well kosovo was serbian until the muslims moved in, started outbreeding the locals and then started to attack the serbians. sound familiar? it's in the muslim playbook 101. the problem was the serbs didn't play the propaganda game so recently they came off as the bad guys.

the palestinians aren't some precious and beautiful culture under attack, they are an aggressive, tribal, culturally backward people who, after butchering jews for hundreds of years, finally got their asses handed to them.

here's a newsflash - people reap what they sow and the palestinians are reaping a world of pain which is probably well deserved. if they settled down and behaved like civilised people instead of throwing a perpetual tantrum and lobbing endless rockets at israel they could probably negotiate a solution and eventually be reabsorbed into the wider area and population. but they won't. you know why they won't? because of who they are and what they believe. we even have them here in sydney marching down the street waving the flag of hamas (a terrorist organisation!) and abusing people as they pass by. their attitudes and behaviour are laid bare for all to see and the only response i have to this is "fk them".

so all you people defending the palestinians and claiming israel is evil, have a long hard look at who and what you are defending, and maybe point a few fingers at a major root of the whole problem here and in so many other conflict zones throughout the world - ISLAM.


----------



## wayneL (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> I think Obama may actually be worse, honestly...




I think so too, and said as much during the campaign.


----------



## tigerboi (6 January 2009)

*Reeace in the middle east? not in our lifetime*

As i said elsewhere yesterday peace is a dream until the likes of hamas/hezbollah are dealt with for good...no other way

how can you deal with the mindset that sends his son out to blow himself up?what you got here is generations of a 7th century mindset that needs to be brought into the modern 21st century world(wont be done around a table talking about a phony peace)

i hear you all on the israelis hitting back hard,however they are ringed by mortal enimies who cannot understand that they will not defeat israel,they've tried for 50 years & despite outnumbering israel by about 8-10/1?they havent won a stink ever...

the israelis should have taken all the settlements down no doubt about that,but dont forget that they leave gaza,hamas takes over & starts firing rockets...(very dumb,pull the tail of a tiger & bitch & moan when he bites you)

you can have has many road maps,peace talks,etc but until the iranian satellites hamas/hezbollah are wiped out anyone thinking of peace are having a giant tug...tb

just my opinion of course


----------



## rowie (6 January 2009)

Disarray - Horrid viewpoint. As a muslim i am deeply offended.


----------



## Bushman (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> I think Obama may actually be worse, honestly...




Worse than Condoleeza Rice, Dubya and their 'velvet gloves'?


----------



## disarray (6 January 2009)

rowie said:


> As a muslim i am deeply offended.




muslims usually are. tissue?


----------



## rowie (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> muslims usually are. tissue?




No tissue necessary. Just a very narrow racist viewpoint. Obviously you havent a clue - and the audacity to speak of palestinians as a tribal backward culture. Clueless is an understatement!!!


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> so all you people defending the palestinians and claiming israel is evil, have a long hard look at who and what you are defending, and maybe point a few fingers at a major root of the whole problem here and in so many other conflict zones throughout the world - ISLAM.




LOL!!!

Israel's biggest enemy over the years, Fatah, is a secular organisation that represents Christians as well as Muslims.

Swing again.


----------



## Whiskers (6 January 2009)

Julia said:


> Whiskers, with respect, although to us so far away and without the stress of generations of conflict, it may seem 'sensible' and 'reasonable' to dismiss the impact of the 1948 issue, I think it's something ingrained into the collective psyche of the Palestinian people.
> 
> You have only to consider the views of our own indigenous people, whom I doubt will ever change their view that they were invaded, to draw a small level of comparison.




Yes I agree with that, because I was not dismissing the significance of 1948, and was going to mention that parallel, but was getting a bit long in the post already.

Because it is so important I have no doubt it should be on the list of issues to deal with, but from a practacility point of view some sort of priority of issues has to be established and my gestimate is that atm there are more immeadiate issues that I'd expect they would want and need to deal with first such as the day to day living issues of food, medical and health care.

Also, because those very emotional issues need to be taken care of as much as possible before the conflict resolution process gets under way, to facilitiate reasonable dialogue, there really needs to be a cooling off period first.

This is the gist of where I'm trying to get at, where Hamas is not doing the Palastine people any favours in terms of helping the process by carrying on with their provocative rantings in the media antaganising Israel and not taking advantage of opportunities to relieve their plight such as Israel letting aid trucks through, but Hamas reportedly continuing fire at them causing Israel to close off the convoy prematurely.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

Bushman said:


> Worse than Condoleeza Rice, Dubya and their 'velvet gloves'?




Yes, he is an evangelist, so no doubt he subscribes to the same BS end of the world scenarios.

His chief of staff is perhaps one of the worst zionist hard liners that I've heard of with political power.

And he has also quashed any right of return talks. Which to me, breaches many many international conventions to start with.

As long as the Jews hold untold power in US politics, nothing meaningful will be done.


----------



## Bushman (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> well kosovo was serbian until the muslims moved in, started outbreeding the locals and then started to attack the serbians. sound familiar? it's in the muslim playbook 101. the problem was the serbs didn't play the propaganda game so recently they came off as the bad guys.




You are joking right? How was the Ottoman Empires behaviour any different to any other European or Asian empire of the time?  

The 'Serbs' (i.e. the Serbian Nationalists under Karadzic) milked the propaganda game for all its worth and hit a nerve in the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Eastern Block. 

Anyway the point that was being made was that you cannot view conflicts with a root in history from a modern, Australian viewpoint? 

Rowie - my apologies for your offence. Not sure why the broad brush of Islam was bought into the debate? Its like drawing a conclusion about Christianity based on the on-going butchery in the 'Catholic' Congo.


----------



## rowie (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> Israel's biggest enemy over the years, Fatah, is a secular organisation that represents Christians as well as Muslims.
> 
> Swing again.




Chops, I wouldnt bother responding to disarrays ignorant racist threads, you would get more talking to a wall. These people dont realise that this whole conflict is not based on religion but on territory/land acquisition and resources. Disarray simplifies it in his mind by narrowing it down to base it on a conflict between forward and backward civilisations and religion - As I said before, he hasnt a clue. I wouldnt bother trying to school him...


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

Forget whether islam is the problem. What I don't get is how muslims can still belong to the club when such horrible things are done in its name. Same goes for all religions.

If people in this silly thread started blowing up skyscrapers, do you think you would still logon and subscribe? If I were a muslim, I would suspend my enrolment until the religion was purged of fanatics. Which is another way of saying I could never subscribe.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

lucas said:


> If people in this silly thread started blowing up skyscrapers, do you think you would still logon and subscribe?




I don't know.

How about you ask an Israeli, or an English embassy worker about it? :


----------



## slim pickins (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> well kosovo was serbian until the muslims moved in, started outbreeding the locals and then started to attack the serbians. sound familiar? it's in the muslim playbook 101. the problem was the serbs didn't play the propaganda game so recently they came off as the bad guys.
> 
> the palestinians aren't some precious and beautiful culture under attack, they are an aggressive, tribal, culturally backward people who, after butchering jews for hundreds of years, finally got their asses handed to them.
> 
> ...




i think you will find the serbs attacked and devestated a few christian countries and burned a few catholic churches before picking figths with muslims.

every western country agrees and thats why they had to bomb them back into line and teach them a lesson or two.

and its irrelevant in this discussion anyway.


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

Chops, I think you are making the same or similar point. Why this need to belong to seriously imperfect organisations?


----------



## disarray (6 January 2009)

repeat after me - ISLAM ISN'T A RACE 



			
				rowie said:
			
		

> Obviously you havent a clue - and the audacity to speak of palestinians as a tribal backward culture.




yeah, a culture that routinely practices honour killings is modern and enlightened 



			
				chops_a_must said:
			
		

> Israel's biggest enemy over the years, Fatah, is a secular organisation that represents Christians as well as Muslims




right so the rest of the arab world that has on numerous occasions invaded israel with the express purpose of wiping them from the face of the earth, and who fund, equip and train palestinian terrorists don't count as big enemies of israel? i didn't know there was a scale of enemies from "biggest" to "smallest"



			
				bushman said:
			
		

> Anyway the point that was being made was that you cannot view conflicts with a root in history from a modern, Australian viewpoint?




why not? i would think from the outside, with the emotion and cultural baggage removed one could have a clearer view of a groups actions without the usual justifications people use to condone murder and terror.



			
				bushman said:
			
		

> Not sure why the broad brush of Islam was bought into the debate? Its like drawing a conclusion about Christianity based on the on-going butchery in the 'Catholic' Congo.




no, its nothing like it at all. christianity doesn't condone "go forth and kill the unbelievers" like islam does. christianity doesn't fund and support organisations who strap bombs to their followers and blow themselves up on crowded buses like islam does.

a heady mix of tribal nationalism and religion are the root causes of these conflicts, and when your religion compels you to exterminate your enemy (as hamas clearly and succinctly states) then there is your eternal, non negotiable justification for continuing the campaign. victory or death, not much scope for peace is there?



			
				rowie said:
			
		

> Chops, I wouldnt bother responding to disarrays ignorant racist threads, you would get more talking to a wall. These people dont realise that this whole conflict is not based on religion but on territory/land acquisition and resources. Disarray simplifies it in his mind by narrowing it down to base it on a conflict between forward and backward civilisations and religion - As I said before, he hasnt a clue. I wouldnt bother trying to school him...




yeah well done making your own assumptions up on that high horse rowie. i'll make my point a bit more clearly for you.

yes a large part of the conflict is land and resources, most conflicts come down to that because thats what people fight about. however the justifications for the conflict, the means by which people contine the fight and the spiritual rewards obtained by martyring yourself rest firmly on a religious foundation.

in the mosques and on the street corners, imams admonish the people to fight israel to the death because its what god wants. allah doesn't want peace, allah wants victory and domination, THEN you have your dar es salaam. i remember travelling through southern lebanon seeing exactly this kind of behaviour, public rallies with imams ranting to kill israel blah blah blah and masses of people all getting whipped up into a frenzy. this kind of behaviour does not lend itself for civil discourse or negotiation.

money and materials (like the rockets the palestinians keep lobbing at israel) also come in from neighbouring muslim states, who publicly state their affinity with their muslim brothers and vent the usual fire and brimstone death to israel rhetoric we're getting sick of hearing. although they don't have enough affinity to resettle the palestinians in their own countries because they are more useful where they are as a propaganda tool right?

then we have the suicide bombers. in islam to die as a martyr is rewarded in heaven, so training your children to hate jews and then grow up to blow themselves up is a noble calling. i've seen more than one palestinian mother shed a tear of joy and say how proud she was young mohammed is in heaven after killing a busload of people.

so way to whitewash the entire religious aspect to the conflict, because the fact jews and muslims have been at each others throats over the "holy land" for more than a thousand years couldn't possibly have any bearing on this conflict could it? anyway islam is the religion of peace right? as long as you're a muslim. of the right sect.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Hence Christian Zionism and the support of the American religious right... all tied up with prophesy concerning the second coming of Christ.



Not to mention the Al Mahdi which is believed by Shi'ites. Iran is bad news for everything it is doing.


----------



## rowie (6 January 2009)

Disarray - 
1: your racism refers to your statement that the palestinians are a backward culture. Referring to an entire race of people as backward to my mind has a hint of racism to it.
2: Palestinian culture routinely practice honor killings - That statement proves my point that you are ignorant on many levels regarding the cultures of these people. 
3: South Lebanon sermons in mosques?? Are you for real or have you just made that up to strengthen your argument? I myself am of Lebanese background and have never experienced such sermons on any number of occasions over there.


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

Changing the subject slightly, does anyone know if the concept of an Israeli state carried much weight _before_ Hitler? I mean, what chance was there of it coming about without WW2?


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Changing the subject slightly, does anyone know if the concept of an Israeli state carried much weight _before_ Hitler? I mean, what chance was there of it coming about without WW2?



Virtually none.

It had been promised to the Palestinians for their support of the British in WW1. Which is why the British refused to grant Israel a state, opposed partition and did all they could to stop it.


----------



## slim pickins (6 January 2009)

disarray,

i thought i was pretty conservative on the israel issue. and i do believe israel has a right to live in peace and to destroy terror organisations that threaten it.... but your posts border on inciting religious, ethnic and raical violence.


somethign you would find on extremist sites.

i dont think that is a path we should be following


----------



## Bushman (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> no, its nothing like it at all. christianity doesn't condone "go forth and kill the unbelievers" like islam does. christianity doesn't fund and support organisations who strap bombs to their followers and blow themselves up on crowded buses like islam does.
> 
> .




I am assuming you are talking about the 21st century where Euro-Christian democracies control most of the wealth, armaments and power? 

History does not judge Christianity as kindly i.e the Crusades, the Inquisition, Colonialism etc

"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 January 2009)

rowie said:


> I myself am of Lebanese background



Hi Rowie,
Nice to have you on the forums. I have a question regarding the learning of Arabic.
Are Egyptian Arabic and the Arabic you probably speak very different so much as to not be able to communicate? Or are they quite similar much like Us and Australian English?


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

Probably for all the wrong reasons, but in hindsight perhaps it's a pity the British didn't prevail. Do the Jews in America and Australia really need Israel to exist? The concept of homeland is strong I grant you, but if you were born elsewhere it hardly matters except in some romantic sense.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Virtually none.
> 
> It had been promised to the Palestinians for their support of the British in WW1. Which is why the British refused to grant Israel a state, opposed partition and did all they could to stop it.



Chops,
At the end of world war two why didn't the British stop the Zionists from taking the land? Did they think the arab nations could do it?


----------



## disarray (6 January 2009)

rowie said:


> 1: your racism refers to your statement that the palestinians are a backward culture. Referring to an entire race of people as backward to my mind has a hint of racism to it.




to my mind it doesn't. i am an australian raised and educated with western values so things like honour killings are considered barbaric and backward by our cultural standards. this doesn't make me racist, and i have every right to criticise practices i feel are morally reprehensible, and criticise belief systems i feel are objectionable. you are free to do the same. well, you are free to do the same here in australia, maybe not in saudi arabia or iran or china, but thats one of the perks of living in the western world isn't it?

so are you saying you don't consider things like honour killings, child brides and sharia laws backward?



> 2: Palestinian culture routinely practice honor killings - That statement proves my point that you are ignorant on many levels regarding the cultures of these people.




so they don't practice honour killings? 



> 3: South Lebanon sermons in mosques?? Are you for real or have you just made that up to strengthen your argument?




yes i am for real, yes i saw it, yes it strengthens my argument. now lets make some points instead of just attacking the poster ok?


----------



## Bushman (6 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Probably for all the wrong reasons, but in hindsight perhaps it's a pity the British didn't prevail. Do the Jews in America and Australia really need Israel to exist? The concept of homeland is strong I grant you, but if you were born elsewhere it hardly matters except in some romantic sense.




You will find that Jewish immigration to the US and Australia peaked during and just after WWII. Hence the strong support for Israel.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Chops,
> At the end of world war two why didn't the British stop the Zionists from taking the land? Did they think the arab nations could do it?




They did try to.

But the Irgun set out to kill all Britons in Palestine. The Brits didn't want another war, it was not popular at home and there was significant pressure from the US to relent.


----------



## disarray (6 January 2009)

Bushman said:


> I am assuming you are talking about the 21st century where Euro-Christian democracies control most of the wealth, armaments and power?
> 
> History does not judge Christianity as kindly i.e the Crusades, the Inquisition, Colonialism etc
> 
> "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)




hi bushman, we're not talking about 1000 years ago, we are talking about NOW. the 21st century. people always dredge up historical bs arguments in threads like this. here's a newsflash, human history is full of barbarity from all races and most creeds.

what we should be doing is looking at what are people doing and saying NOW. what are their actions and attitudes NOW. not "so and so did so and so to my people 1000 years ago", we will never ever ever progress as long as people keep bringing up ancient butthurts.

judge people by their actions TODAY, not last week, not last century, not last millenium, TODAY.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> hi bushman, we're not talking about 1000 years ago, we are talking about NOW. the 21st century. people always dredge up historical bs arguments in threads like this. here's a newsflash, human history is full of barbarity from all races and most creeds.




Didn't you bring something from the 1300s into this argument?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> They did try to.
> 
> But the Irgun set out to kill all Britons in Palestine. The Brits didn't want another war, it was not popular at home and there was significant pressure from the US to relent.



Thanks.
By the way what did your comment mean about me last night?


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

Sorry Bushman, are you saying it peaked because thereafter Jews could choose to go to Israel instead? Of course, some would, but I'd like to see some figures to know how many percentage-wise chose to put in the hard yards surrounded by hostile neighbours. I'm guessing, but I would have thought not so very many all up.


----------



## disarray (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Didn't you bring something from the 1300s into this argument?




not regarding palestine, no.


----------



## Buddy (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> They did try to.
> 
> But the Irgun set out to kill all Britons in Palestine. The Brits didn't want another war, it was not popular at home and there was significant pressure from the US to relent.




Yes. And how ironic is it?  Realistically, the Zionists in Palestine at that time invented modern terrorism.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> not regarding palestine, no.




But as an attack on muslims as a whole generally. So it's alll ok then.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

Buddy said:


> Yes. And how ironic is it?  Realistically, the Zionists in Palestine at that time invented modern terrorism.




Indeed they did.

Reaping what you sow I guess.


----------



## Bushman (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> hi bushman, we're not talking about 1000 years ago, we are talking about NOW. the 21st century. people always dredge up historical bs arguments in threads like this. here's a newsflash, human history is full of barbarity from all races and most creeds.
> 
> what we should be doing is looking at what are people doing and saying NOW. what are their actions and attitudes NOW. not "so and so did so and so to my people 1000 years ago", we will never ever ever progress as long as people keep bringing up ancient butthurts.
> 
> judge people by their actions TODAY, not last week, not last century, not last millenium, TODAY.




Hey, as you say, lets embrace today. We, the entrenched Christian Right, control the wealth and the power. We conveniently forget that we shat on the peoples of the world, and dressed it up as 'God's will', to get where we are. This the beauty of the cult of religion - you can say anything is God's will. 

Unless you understand how we got here, and which noses we put out of joint to get here, then we will get nowhere fast.


----------



## rowie (6 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Hi Rowie,
> Nice to have you on the forums. I have a question regarding the learning of Arabic.
> Are Egyptian Arabic and the Arabic you probably speak very different so much as to not be able to communicate? Or are they quite similar much like Us and Australian English?




There are differences in accents/dialects - much like the difference between australian/english/british english accents. However there are also differences in the way some words are spelt and pronounced entirely. My understanding of arabic is not crash hot but I do understand the egyptian accent when it is spoken - Its not too hard to differentiate from 'classical' arabic. Most will understand it too as egyptian music and movies are popular and well watched by other arab speaking countries.
All arab countries speak arabic in different accents and slangs much like the difference between english speaking countries. They even differ in accent within the cities of the same country.


----------



## disarray (6 January 2009)

we're not the christian right, we are currently a secular left. i agree the age of european empires was a pretty brutal time, however it was fuelled by a different intellectual, moral and spiritual framework. so while it is our past, it is not necessarily our future.

all empires grow on the conquest of the weak, the persians, the romans, the islamic caliphate, the ottomans, the british empire, however as a result we also progress as a species with huge advancements in the fields of human thought. as a species we thrive on conflict, that just seems to be the nature of the beast. it needs to be acknowledged, examined and catered for.



> Unless you understand how we got here, and which noses we put out of joint to get here, then we will get nowhere fast




i agree completely, an understanding of history is important to give background to the conflict, however it isn't just a case of saying "oh we were bad, sorry, here do whatever you want". true solutions only come through compromise and negotiation OF ALL PARTIES. everyone everywhere has been hard done by at some time or another and one party CANNOT have the monopoly of historical suffering and victimisation over another.

everyone needs to stop, pretend the past never happened, look at what we are all doing to each other NOW, and then compromise and negotiate from there. whether we are talking the arabs and israelis, the aborigines, the congolese or wherever else, there will never ever be peace unless history is accepted, and people shift their focus from the past to the future.

it will never happen


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

It will never happen, disarray, yes I agree with you. That is, unless a benign form of eugenics is ever practised. It might not come about only as the result of DNA engineering. Technology might eventually come up with other ways to tweak the good over the bad. Before we self-destruct.


----------



## Bushman (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> however it isn't just a case of saying "oh we were bad, sorry, here do whatever you want". true solutions only come through compromise and negotiation OF ALL PARTIES. everyone everywhere has been hard done by at some time or another and one party CANNOT have the monopoly of historical suffering and victimisation over another.




Yep well said. A solution will take compromise from both sides and it is unlikely to happen in our life time.


----------



## Happy (6 January 2009)

> From ABC, 6 Jan. 09
> 
> 
> UN CHIEF CONDEMNS BOTH SIDES IN GAZA CONFLICT
> ...




Looks that UN sees both sides to have some blame for what is happening.

But it also looks that Mr Olmert is determined that: “that Hamas must not only stop firing but must no longer be able to fire”.
How can they do that?

So as it is now there is little chance, as briefcase rocket launchers can be easily smuggled in.


----------



## Macquack (6 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> *israel has no bloodlust*, it wants peace.



Well they are doing a bloody good job of killing a lot of innocent people.



slim pickins said:


> the *palestinians are extremely lucky *to have israel as an adversary. they are being treated with kid gloves.israel is always fighting with one hand tied behind its back due to *human rights constraints*.




That statement is a classic.
"human rights constraints" as in it is *"not acceptable to kill innocent people"*.

Is your view that Israel should nuke the Gaza Strip, and then say sorry?


----------



## Calliope (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> then we have the suicide bombers. in islam to die as a martyr is rewarded in heaven, so training your children to hate jews and then grow up to blow themselves up is a noble calling. i've seen more than one palestinian mother shed a tear of joy and say how proud she was young mohammed is in heaven after killing a busload of people.




We hear a lot about the numbers of children killed in this conflict, and on the streets in Gaza there children running everywhere. I couldn't understand why women living in a hell-hole like the Gaza strip with no future and no hope would continue to have children. After all if they can get weapons they can get contraceptives

Sadly, I think you have provided the answer.


----------



## rowie (6 January 2009)

To those who feel strongly that israel are merely defending themselves against terrorist within the occupied territories, the following are some hard facts: 
No. of palestinian *minors* killed  by israeli forces between 29.9.2000 to 30.11.2008: 975

No. of israeli *minors* killed  by palestinians between 29.9.2000 to 30.11.2008: 123

Can you not see how out of balance this war is? Seriously, who are the real terrorists? I am not in anyway condoning violence on either side, but the facts speak for themselves.   

In 2008 alone, 73 palestinian minors were killed by israeli forces, 47 of which were 15 years and under. This during a period when both sides were supposedly observing the shortlived peace truce.  

From 2001 to current, a total of 16 israelis have been killed by Qassam rocket attacks. Thats 16 deaths in 7 years compared to 73 *minor* deaths in 1 year alone. Again, I am not trying to diminish any of these deaths. 1 death alone is intolerable, however the imbalance in this conflict is so plain to see. For every 1 death caused by a qassam rocket, israel has killed 100 palestinians. Can we really believe that israel is defending themselves by bombarding the crap out of an over-populated city like Gaza? - As they claim  to stop qassam rocket attacks which have taken 16 lives in 8 years. Is this not a gross over-reaction which is really aimed at punishing the entire Gazan population? The figures speak for themselves.


----------



## rowie (6 January 2009)

Calliope said:


> We hear a lot about the numbers of children killed in this conflict, and on the streets in Gaza there children running everywhere. I couldn't understand why women living in a hell-hole like the Gaza strip with no future and no hope would continue to have children. After all if they can get weapons they can get contraceptives
> 
> Sadly, I think you have provided the answer.




Wow this thread tops them all. How dare the people of Gaza continue to pro-create in such hell like squalid conditions. They should do better and not have babies at all. Oh wait, they are actually having babies to provide for a steady stream of suicide bombers - warped....


----------



## Boggo (6 January 2009)

This article is from an Irish newspaper, the media in Europe tend to get to the point and don't seem to be as influenced by political motives.
On TV apart from SBS World News it is impossible to get any informative media reporting in Australia, usually eight minutes of news, seven of ads and the rest is sport, current affairs and in house program promotion 

*Independent.ie
Why the Israeli people have finally had enough*

_So, it's genocide now, is it? Or is it actually another holocaust, something which one typically restrained Palestinian analyst described as "worse than Hitler's war against the Jews"? Are we watching the ethnic cleansing of an entire people? Are we witnessing the deliberate eradication of a race?

Well, no actually, we're not.

Yet the conventional dinner party wisdom which we've had to put up with in the media, both here in Ireland and generally across Britain, is that somehow Israel is the aggressor in the rapidly worsening situation in Gaza.

Footage of air strikes with the ensuing photogenic explosions and dramatic plumes of smoke, quickly followed by clips of collapsed buildings and enraged mourners, makes far better copy than actually looking at the reasons why Israel has done what it's done.

Anyone who devotes only a cursory glance at the news, both print and television, would be forgiven for thinking that, out of spite, might and malice, Israel has decided to destroy the Palestinian people.

The problem with that conclusion -- and it's not something you're going to learn from the BBC and most other outlets -- is that, contrary to the currently popular belief, Israel is actually acting with a ridiculous degree of restraint.

Over the last couple of years, thousands of rockets have been landing on Israeli soil and, finally, they have had enough.

But behind that statistic there is a human dimension which tends to be rather ignored.

I know many people in the southern Israeli town of Sderot and what is remarkable about their stories is not the number or make of rockets which have fallen on them on a daily basis for years, but the psychological carnage this wreaked upon them.

One woman freely admitted to me that she hasn't had a proper night's sleep in more than two years as she and her family now basically live in their bomb shelter and it's hard to tell who she hates more -- the Muslim terrorists of Hamas or the Israeli government which she thinks has abandoned them.

It's a common feeling amongst residents of southern Israeli towns who have been the silent victims of a long campaign of violence, intimidation and murder carried out by Hamas. And now, finally, that the Israelis have said that enough is enough, they are somehow meant to be the aggressors?

There are people of good conscience on both sides of this argument, but one of the main problems in this debate lies in the cowardly tendency of the Western media to apply equivalence to both sides.

Thus, Hamas is seen to be as legitimate a government as the Israelis, and its rocket attacks across the border from Gaza are seen as being part of a yet another, intractable, interminable Middle Eastern dispute.

There's just one problem with that approach -- it's completely wrong.

Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamic organisation intent on the eradication of the state of Israel and all its citizens; a violent fascist regime that allows honour killings and the execution of homosexuals to continue in its sphere of influence. Bankrolled by Iran, it manages to make even Hezbollah look like a moderate organisation.

But Hamas is clever.

As a friend of mine from Sderot pointed out, one of its favourite tactics is to launch Qassams from Palestinian schoolyards -- while the schools are still in session.

Hamas does this, you see, knowing that the IDF can't immediately strike back (they can vector a rocket launch site within 90 seconds) because the last thing the Israelis need is footage of a devastated Palestinian school with dead kids.

And, over the last week, we have seen carefully manipulated footage of dead civilians, with the fact that they were effectively used as human shields conveniently ignored. When Israel pulled out of Gaza -- ironically, the last battalion of IDF troops to leave Gaza contained some people from Sderot -- they were acceding to international and internal pressure. The doves on the Left said it was to prove to Palestinians that they wanted to give Palestinians independence, the hawks on the Right -- and there are some truly scary right-wingers in Israel, even as ardent a supporter of the country as I am will freely admit that -- prophesied that it would lead to carnage.

And, lo and behold, virtually as soon as the last jeep left Gaza the rockets started. And then the blockade began, and the whole damn mess started all over again.

But there's a bigger picture here, something which Israelis have been trying to broadcast to the world, but which, thanks to their spectacular inability to accurately and sympathetically portray their point of view, has not been properly transmitted. It's this -- Israel is the front line of the war between democracy and Islamic fascism.

Would you rather live in a society with a free press, equal rights for women -- and anyone who knows an Israeli woman will know that they're not easily suppressed, anyway -- equal rights for gay people and a proud and stubborn belief in the right of the individual to lead their life in the way that they see fit or would you rather exist in a society where women who dare to speak their mind are executed, where gay people are not just shunned but murdered and where having a dissenting thought marks you out for death?

The civilian deaths in Gaza are to be mourned, and anyone who says otherwise is reprehensible. But in a sick and twisted irony, they are mourned more by Israelis than by Hamas, who know that every dead Palestinian kid is worth another piece of propaganda.

Here in the West, where we share the same values as Israel, we need to start standing shoulder with this tiny oasis of democracy in a vast desert of savagery.

To do otherwise is moral cowardice of the most repugnant kind._


----------



## gordon2007 (6 January 2009)

rowie said:


> From 2001 to current, a total of 16 israelis have been killed by Qassam rocket attacks.




Where do you get those facts and figures from?


according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs...from 2000 to 2004, Hamas was responsible for killing nearly 400 Israelis and wounding more than 2,000 in 425 attacks

From 2001 through May 2008, Hamas launched more than 3,000 Qassam rockets and 2,500 mortar attacks against Israeli targets.


Who knows whether those numbers are accurate. My point in posting those numbers is to show that anyone can post any numbers and back it up with a "link". Here is the link to what I've just posted. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475664,00.html
Admittedly foxnews is just that, foxnews, depending on how left or right you believe, you'll believe the accuracy of this report.

I've never seen a war yet where one side gives 100% accurate informations.


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

rowie said:


> To those who feel strongly that israel are merely defending themselves against terrorist within the occupied territories, the following are some hard facts:
> No. of palestinian *minors* killed  by israeli forces between 29.9.2000 to 30.11.2008: 975
> 
> No. of israeli *minors* killed  by palestinians between 29.9.2000 to 30.11.2008: 123




This statistic could prove almost anything you care to believe.

On a different note, it was only a month or two ago we were expecting to wake up to hear that Iran's nuclear installations were toast.

Is it possible that this Gaza episode is a prelude to that happening - maybe it will provide some form of excuse?


----------



## Uncle Barry (6 January 2009)

At least 537 Palestinians have died in the conflict and 2,600 are wounded, including several women and children killed yesterday,

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYVsYPYNys_Y&refer=home

*killed yesterday*

and what about today ?


----------



## Buddy (6 January 2009)

rowie said:


> To those who feel strongly that israel are merely defending themselves against terrorist within the occupied territories, the following are some hard facts:
> No. of palestinian *minors* killed  by israeli forces between 29.9.2000 to 30.11.2008: 975
> 
> No. of israeli *minors* killed  by palestinians between 29.9.2000 to 30.11.2008: 123
> ...




Given that the population of Israel is around 7.2m vs 0.5m for Gaza, it does seem a bit one sided, to put it rather callously.  However (1) How does Isreal stop Hamas and the rest of the bros taking pot shots at them, and (2) How does Israel (and the rest of the world for that matter) deal with the fact that Iran (and a few million others) want to make mischief and wipe Israel & the Jews off the map? If anyone can answer those questions then they may have made a mark in history for themselves. What is the solution? Other than so much killing and violence that they significantly reduce each other's population to the point where nuffs enuff. Can the world's major powers (and U.N.???) ever develop a solution that satisfies all parties?


----------



## Calliope (6 January 2009)

Boggo said:


> This article is from an Irish newspaper, the media in Europe tend to get to the point and don't seem to be as influenced by political motives............
> But Hamas is clever.
> As a friend of mine from Sderot pointed out, one of its favourite tactics is to launch Qassams from Palestinian schoolyards -- while the schools are still in session.
> 
> ...




Thanks Boggo for the post. Parts of which I have quoted.

Rowie      
That is why Hamas needs the kids, but I guess you already knew this and don't consider *them* "warped" at all.


----------



## Macquack (6 January 2009)

Boggo said:


> *Independent.ie quote:-*
> 
> "The civilian deaths in Gaza are to be mourned, and anyone who says otherwise is reprehensible. But in a sick and twisted irony, they are mourned more by Israelis than by Hamas, who know that *every dead Palestinian kid is worth another piece of propaganda*."




This is a very biased statement.

How can a dead Palestinian child be referred to as "another piece of propaganda".


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> This is a very biased statement.
> 
> How can a dead Palestinian child be referred to as "another piece of propaganda".




Because they aren't real people. You should know that Macquack...


----------



## rowie (6 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> Where do you get those facts and figures from?
> 
> 
> according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs...from 2000 to 2004, Hamas was responsible for killing nearly 400 Israelis and wounding more than 2,000 in 425 attacks
> ...





These figures are from an israeli human rights group who independently keep track of atrocities that occur on both sides of the fence. Here is a link to the page: 
www.btselem.org. 
There are many israelis who are appalled at the action that their own government takes on palestinians. 
For anyone who cares to search, this sort of information is quite readily available from reliable resources on the net. Of course we cant wish for 100% accurate information rather something close to the vicinity. 

And yes 3000 qassam rockets have been fired into israel yet they have only resulted in 16 deaths. This is a fact that even israeli propoganda machinery reports - Look it up. Isnt it a wonder why there are those who support israel in this war considering most like yourself are not even familiar with the hard facts. Fact is that even israel have admitted that the rockets do not pose a serious physical threat to the general population rather one more a phsycological threat. 

And your facts on the number Hamas has killed between 2000 to 2004 relates not to deaths from qassam rockets. The total number of deaths is something like 5000 palestinians and 1000 israelis since 2000. I was only pointing out the deaths to minors as they are more often then not innocent victims in this conflict. Check out the facts yourself from reasonable sources (Fox news certainly not a reasonable source)


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

I don't think I am heartless, but counting dead children does not seem an appropriate means to ascertain who has more of a moral high ground.


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I don't think I am heartless, but counting dead children does not seem an appropriate means to ascertain who has more of a moral high ground.



No, but it is probably a fairer measure of degree of suffering.


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

It's an unfortunate fact that the dead don't suffer. You would have to factor in the psychological damage done to living children from human beings bent on your destruction. Not something I feel happy doing either.

It is violence as a solution that is the crime, and both parties commit it endlessly.


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

I fear we are going to witness the taking out of Iran's nuke hotspots sometime soon. Under cover of this Gaza incursion - what better time?

What's the general feeling that this is the doorstep to massive all-out war, or just more of the same dribbling along?

And what do people think of Obama's coming into this in two weeks? I have my views but I'm more interested in what you think.


----------



## gordon2007 (6 January 2009)

> www.btselem.org.



Thanks for the link


> There are many israelis who are appalled at the action that their own government takes on palestinians.



I'm sure there are many in gaza who are appalled at what hamas does. just as there are many in australia who are appalled at what australia does and just as there are many in america who are appalled at what america does.



> have only resulted in 16 deaths.



Only? Death is death. Why is it deemed acceptable that the deaths hamas causes are OK because they are "ONLY" a few!!!



> considering most like yourself are not even familiar with the hard facts.



You don't know where I've been and what I've seen. You cannot make an intelligent assumption on where I've been without knowing me personally.



> And your facts on the number Hamas has killed



They are not my facts, merely text written on a news page I chose to quote on here. I never claimed they were mine.



> (Fox news certainly not a reasonable source)



I did make a reference that one is to believe what they will from fox. I was only using that as an example as to how easy it is to find a link that is favourable to any particular view.

Slightly off topic, I can't seem to figure out this multi quoting


----------



## rowie (6 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I don't think I am heartless, but counting dead children does not seem an appropriate means to ascertain who has more of a moral high ground.




Lucas, it is merely to point out the imbalance of the conflict and to show who the real oppressors are. Israel seems to think that theyre people are being oppressed or that at least is the argument they present to justify the heavy handed actions that they take. Casualty rates such as these show who is mightier and who has the strength and general control in the conflict. It goes to illustrate that the palestinians are under occupation by a government and army which is the 4th strongest and biggest in the world. It goes to show that it is very much a david and goliath type battle where for every 1 kid killed in israel, 9 are killed in the occupied territories. How can you not see that there is something fundamentally sick about this? It has got nothing to do with moral high ground rather it illustrates and differentiates between the oppressors and the oppressed. I dont quite understand how you fail to see this.


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

I'll pass on this because I've already made my views clear.


----------



## disarray (6 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> How can a dead Palestinian child be referred to as "another piece of propaganda".




because palestinian media  have been manipulating the media for years to portray israel as an aggressor and the poor innocent palestinians as victims. using dead children as propaganda? naaaah, i mean, who would do such a thing??? 



			
				chops_a_must said:
			
		

> No, but it is probably a fairer measure of degree of suffering.




because bodycount = suffering 



			
				rowie said:
			
		

> It has got nothing to do with moral high ground rather it illustrates and differentiates between the oppressors and the oppressed




no, it illustrates who best manipulates the media to sway public opinion to their side. oppressed, lol, thats a good one. oh no, the poor palestinians who were cheering in the streets on 9/11, call for the destruction of israel, train their children to hate israel, encourage people to blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces and murder homosexuals and female family members for besmirching the family "honour" are oppressed? cry me a river.

by their works shall ye judge them, those who live by the sword yadda yadda insert relevant biblical reference about nasty people getting their comeuppance here.

oh yeah david and goliath, nice analogy. like the entire arab world against israel kind of thing yeah? with the palestinians left holding the bag for the repeated abject failures of their muslim brothers. well done the ummah!


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> because bodycount = suffering




Yep, that's right.

The scale of the holocaust indicates no link to suffering at all. Nor does the Tokyo Fire Raids, nor does the numbers of civilian deaths on the eastern front or in Manchuria, Rwanda et al.


----------



## disarray (6 January 2009)

well it could be argued people who are alive living under constant fear and torment suffer a lot more than the dead. i mean there are chinese that think the cultural revolution was a good thing despite the huge bodycount. numbers are just that, numbers, its the impact on those still around that determine suffering.

so you are saying the israelis who have had rockets falling around them and buses, nightclubs and marketplaces blown up for years and years don't suffer as much as the palestinians?

seriously look at the following picture, how the hell do you deal with people who make childrens cartoons that say you should kill jews, groom their kids to blow themselves up and will accept genocide as the only way to live with your neighbours? why is the left so hell bent on defending this madness???


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> well it could be argued people who are alive living under constant fear and torment suffer a lot more than the dead. i mean there are chinese that think the cultural revolution was a good thing despite the huge bodycount. numbers are just that, numbers, its the impact on those still around that determine suffering.



If you are going to invoke that then you would look at the probability of being killed when you happen to be living in a certain area, or belong to a certain racial group. I'd say the odds are stacked against Gazans there.



disarray said:


> so you are saying the israelis who have had rockets falling around them and buses, nightclubs and marketplaces blown up for years and years don't suffer as much as the palestinians?



Yes. Because:

1. They are allowed to travel, and travel on buses.
2. They are allowed to congregate, and congregate in nightclubs/ social arenas/ whatever.
3. Because they are allowed to have an economy and a marketplace.



disarray said:


> seriously look at the following picture, how the hell do you deal with people who make childrens cartoons that say you should kill jews, groom their kids to blow themselves up and will accept genocide as the only way to live with your neighbours? why is the left so hell bent on defending this madness???




I don't think anyone here is defending that. But a lot here understand the circumstances that lead to those beliefs. Not exactly hard to become a radical when you don't have access to fundamental human rights, and more peaceful actions have left you nowhere.


----------



## disarray (6 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Yes. Because:
> 
> 1. They are allowed to travel, and travel on buses.
> 2. They are allowed to congregate, and congregate in nightclubs/ social arenas/ whatever.
> 3. Because they are allowed to have an economy and a marketplace.




ok, so why don't the palestinians have these freedoms? did they used to have these freedoms and now they don't? or have they never been allowed these freedoms? if they had them before but not now, why were they taken away?



> I don't think anyone here is defending that. But a lot here understand the circumstances that lead to those beliefs. Not exactly hard to become a radical when you don't have access to fundamental human rights, and more peaceful actions have left you nowhere.




by the same token it isn't hard to commit dometic violence when your parents beat you, or sexually abuse children because you were abused as a child, it doesn't mean we tolerate it or accept it as an excuse. the offender must break the cycle, not continue to indulge in it, yet for some reason we continue to make excuses for murderous radicals with psychotic ideals. why is that???

and more peaceful actions? the palestinians regularly violate truces and ceasefires because they can't help but start lobbing rockets at people again. seriously, these people are like children and need a thorough smacking down to try and teach them how to behave as civilised neighbours.


----------



## The Muffin Man (6 January 2009)

If my country was the continual target of the rockets fired from a bordering neighbour I would consider this an act of war from my neighbour.

I am not sure I understand why some on here are calling a response to an act of war as 'disproportionate.' 

Does Israel need to wait until some Hamas rockets kill mass amounts of Israeli citizens before they can respond with force so that the response is then not labelled 'disproportionate?' That does not make sense to me. 

If my country was subject to continual rocket attacks from my neighbour, and my country had the more well trained and better equiped army, I would not expect my country to employ some kind of tit for tat response. That would defeat the purpose of having the stronger army. I would expect a response that ensured that these rocket attacks are stopped. If your country falls under constant attack, you don't sit around waiting until these attacks kill a greater number of your citizens in an attempt to legitimize a heavy handed response. You remove those perpetrating the threat with minimal casualties on your side. If Hamas had such weaponry available to them, I am positive they would be using it.


----------



## wayneL (6 January 2009)

Sky News was just showing an interview with an English lass in Gaza who is working as a volunteer ambulance driver.

Her ambulance was caught in an attack, the amulance damaged and her colleague injured.

She says the situation is intolerable, the Israeli forces strafing civilians at will with f16s, spy planes(?) and apache attack choppers. Iraeli naval vessels are bombarding from the Med also.

The media here definitely very sympathetic with the Palestinian plight.

FWIW


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> ok, so why don't the palestinians have these freedoms? did they used to have these freedoms and now they don't? or have they never been allowed these freedoms? if they had them before but not now, why were they taken away?




This is largely as a result of the second intifida which was triggered by various inflammatory actions by Sharon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, given his record, and what he is on record as saying, that it was a deliberate provocation.



disarray said:


> by the same token it isn't hard to commit dometic violence when your parents beat you, or sexually abuse children because you were abused as a child, it doesn't mean we tolerate it or accept it as an excuse. the offender must break the cycle, not continue to indulge in it, yet for some reason we continue to make excuses for murderous radicals with psychotic ideals. why is that???



I would not see that as an acceptable analogy. I'd more liken it to cases where wives have carried out violent acts on partners after relationships of complete torture.

I agree that at some point there has to be a break in the cycle. But this has to be on BOTH sides. An end to expansion of Israeli territory would be a first step. All well and good to put all the blame on one side, but meaningful actions have to be enacted on both sides.

Psychotic ideals belong to both sides also. Not sure why you are only singling one out. Even Ben Gurion, the founder of Israel openly admitted that Israel would always be an aggressor. Not really any different to how Hitler behaved in the Sudetenland. 



disarray said:


> and more peaceful actions? the palestinians regularly violate truces and ceasefires because they can't help but start lobbing rockets at people again. seriously, these people are like children and need a thorough smacking down to try and teach them how to behave as civilised neighbours.



I'm talking about Fatah, and even though they were a moderate political force, and the most lenient body Israel are ever going to deal with, they were crushed and humiliated. So if you are going to be treated like that, if you have a moderate outlook, why wouldn't you take up a more defensive position and outlook?


----------



## chops_a_must (6 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> If my country was the continual target of the rockets fired from a bordering neighbour I would consider this an act of war from my neighbour.




When the Chinese invade, I'll tell them you have allowed them to commandeer your house from you. 

That's all ok according to you.


----------



## lucas (6 January 2009)

disarray said:


> seriously, these people are like children and need a thorough smacking down to try and teach them how to behave as civilised neighbours.




War teaches historians lessons; I doubt if it teaches civilised behaviour.

But your posts are heartfelt and I don't mean to poke at them like some fussy teacher.

I'm still interested in what others think about the future of this payback; it's not so hard to extrapolate from the past. Where's it going? Alright, my 2c - I don't think Hamas can be wiped out. I can't see how Israel can achieve anything but more pain for itself by striking as it has.


----------



## disarray (7 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> This is largely as a result of the second intifida which was triggered by various inflammatory actions by Sharon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, given his record, and what he is on record as saying, that it was a deliberate provocation.




so its all the israelis fault and nothing to do with continual palestinian violence? and sharon just had an irrational hatred of the palestinians for no reason whatsoever. right.



> I'd more liken it to cases where wives have carried out violent acts on partners after relationships of complete torture.




i wouldn't, because the palestinians aren't some poor defenceless battered bride, they are a heavily armed, aggressively motivated, genocidally inclined, paramilitary force.



> I agree that at some point there has to be a break in the cycle. But this has to be on BOTH sides. An end to expansion of Israeli territory would be a first step.




they've already stopped. the israelis left gaza completely a few years ago.



> Psychotic ideals belong to both sides also. Not sure why you are only singling one out.




because israel doesn't have a constitution that says ""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Cedar tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." 



> I'm talking about Fatah, and even though they were a moderate political force, and the most lenient body Israel are ever going to deal with, they were crushed and humiliated. So if you are going to be treated like that, if you have a moderate outlook, why wouldn't you take up a more defensive position and outlook?




ummm israel didn't crush fatah, it was hamas who crushed them. good to see the palestinians managing their internal affairs with the same delicacy as their external affairs.

this is what the israelis are dealing with ...

Palestinians boast of using civilians as human shields

"We want death just as much as you desire life"

lots of scope for a peaceful resolution there 



			
				lucas said:
			
		

> War teaches historians lessons; I doubt if it teaches civilised behaviour.




sure it does, its worked for empires for centuries (imposing their own brand of "civilised" of course). it did wonders for the japanese as well didn't it?


----------



## disarray (7 January 2009)

lol just got sent this link, little palestinian girls doing the suicide bomber dance. so cute!



and here are palestinians playing "pass the injured baby for a great photo op". media manipulation? not a chance.


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

The difference between the US occupation of Japan and the Israeli occupation of any Arab land is so categorical that the point is anything but moot. Besides, the Japanese chose collective amnesia to heal their wounds. Arabs have excellent memories.

Sharon, by the way, has a lot to answer for. Arafat too.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 January 2009)

disarray said:


> so its all the israelis fault and nothing to do with continual palestinian violence? and sharon just had an irrational hatred of the palestinians for no reason whatsoever. right.



That seems to be the case yes. There are plenty of quotes around of him that indicate this.

There was a Palestinian uprising as a result of the provocation which was crushed, and is used as the justification for the continuation of restrictions.

Like I keep saying, there are faults on BOTH sides. Just giving you the rationale for the crack down.



disarray said:


> i wouldn't, because the palestinians aren't some poor defenceless battered bride, they are a heavily armed, aggressively motivated, genocidally inclined, paramilitary force.



Lol.

Yeah, they have attack helicopters and tanks and all sorts.




disarray said:


> they've already stopped. the israelis left gaza completely a few years ago.




Uh uh.

They still control ALL exits and never allowed the airport to re-open. It is virtually impossible to leave.

And no, settlement expansion has certainly not stopped. Israel is in violation of all peace agreements it has agreed to.




disarray said:


> because israel doesn't have a constitution that says ""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (the Cedar tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."




There are some equally horrific quotes from zionist doctrine already posted in this thread.



disarray said:


> ummm israel didn't crush fatah, it was hamas who crushed them. good to see the palestinians managing their internal affairs with the same delicacy as their external affairs.




Uh uh.

Israel and the US propped up and infiltrated Fatah, which is why they were crushed as a political force, after having been made completely impotent for many years.

Like I keep saying, there are many faults on both sides.

You cannot justify either. And any demonstration of one sides evilness over the other can be countered with something equally as bad.

But when it comes to upholding basic human rights, and the equality of life... it aint hard to know where to be sympathetic.


----------



## Uncle Barry (7 January 2009)

"Israel yesterday rejected separate ceasefire initiatives from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the European Union,"

and

"A foreign doctor at a Gaza hospital, Mads Gilbert, challenged Israel's claim that Hamas fighters were being targeted, saying that by his count 801 children had been injured or killed. Dr Gilbert told the BBC last night: "The numbers are contradictory to everything Israel says. This is the worst man-made disaster for the time I can think (of)." 


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24882659-601,00.html

800kids......... 
Israel hang your head in shame.
Mr Hitler would be proud of you !

If Israel does not want to stop this attack on another State, then it must be considered that israel is the monster, the problem !


----------



## gordon2007 (7 January 2009)

Uncle Barry said:


> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24882659-601,00.html"A foreign doctor at a Gaza hospital, Mads Gilbert, challenged Israel's claim that Hamas fighters were being targeted, saying that by his count 801 children had been injured or killed. Dr Gilbert told the BBC last night: "The numbers are contradictory to everything Israel says. This is the worst man-made disaster for the time I can think (of)."
> 
> 
> 800kids.........
> ...



UB,
have you even read that article?
It states "bringing the Palestinian death toll since the campaign began to more than 580, of which the UN says a quarter are civilians."

"HAMAS leader Mahmoud Zahar has warned that Jewish children are now legitimate targets, in a bloodcurdling precursor to tanks rolling into the Islamic militant stronghold of Khan Younis yesterday."

So it's OK for hamas to target and kill children?

Hey, I'm taking these quotes from you own link that youv'e provided us.

I know I said I wouldn't respond to your posts any more, but geez this one tops the cake. You're making up your own stories and facts and figures now?


----------



## Uncle Barry (7 January 2009)

Dear Gordon,
I am not making up the News, the News that all of the non Jewish World would read.

Please control yourself and 'stick' to the facts.

If you think israel can do no wrong and kill or wound OVER 3000 PEOPLE and your heart still burns for everything in that land and they way they conduct their affairs, please, why don't you move there.

And now, this seems to pain you for some reason,
"So it's OK for hamas to target and kill children?"


Why worry ?
To you its acceptable for 
800 of THEIR kids to be killed or hurt, 
but not one of your kids, 
why the double standard ? 

Remember someone said it was War, and in War BOTH sides, both groups of people will be killed and or hurt, so I guess yours, the kids of Israel are about to be hurt also.

BUT
How about you pour your energy into sending an email to israel or better still get on the phone and tell them 
to START a peace process, 
to STOP the attack !


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> "HAMAS leader Mahmoud Zahar has warned that Jewish children are now legitimate targets, in a bloodcurdling precursor to tanks rolling into the Islamic militant stronghold of Khan Younis yesterday."




Since when is firing indiscriminately at a civilian population for years on end EVER not an admission that kids are legitimate targets? Why the faux change of position now? This guy is one sick pup.


----------



## Sean K (7 January 2009)

Only the dead have seen the end of war.

Humans are to blame.


----------



## gordon2007 (7 January 2009)

Uncle Barry said:


> Dear Gordon,
> I am not making up the News, the News that all of the non Jewish World would read.
> 
> Please control yourself and 'stick' to the facts.
> ...





I'm beginning to think you have serious mental health and or a severe incapability to comprehend. 

End of discussion.


----------



## Uncle Barry (7 January 2009)

Dear Gordon,
Arr, when all else fails, attack the player in person !


However you still a problem with,

" Why worry ?
To you its acceptable for 
800 of THEIR kids to be killed or hurt, 
but not one of your kids, 
why the double standard ? 


800........ have you ever seen 800 kids, human children ?

If you have, then think thats the people who you Mr Gordon support, the people who have killed or wounded 800 children.

Just think about it for a while, allow your heart and soul to feed on the fact that israel has 

KILLED
or WOUNDED

800 CHILDREN !

To myself, anyone who even hurts one child is a monster.
So what does that make israel who have killed or wounded 800 ?

please answer Mr Gordon.


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

If you insist on players a numbers game UB, you will have to factor out the number of children that would not have been killed had Hamas not deliberately shielded themselves from attack with children.

But you ought to be able to see why such arguments are ultimately futile and deliberately provocative. They certainly come nowhere towards proving one side more evil than the other*. It isn't that kind of war.

* other arguments might, but not the dead kids one


----------



## Agentm (7 January 2009)

to me the move by israel is simply a means to an end.

wars are never fair or just, its naive to think in those ways.

hamas openly attacks israeli civilians. rocket attacks are "reportedly" happening over an extended period of time. these rockets are not aimed at military targets, they are aimed at populated centres, towns and cities. the objectives of those rockets are solely to harm civilians.

the military operation against hamas operatives, not the Palestinians themselves is directly a result of the ongoing hamas operations. who knows how many families in gaza have sons or daughters involved in the operations, and who knows how many are under the age of 18. i assume there will be hamas members who may be younger than 18 myself. 

50% of the gaza strip population are under 18, so  50% of the time children are likely to be victims in the majority of occasions where the armaments either miss skip, deflect or are incorrectly aimed at military targets.

imho an urban war using strategic bombing primarily is never going to get you definitive results, face to face urban warfare is more likely to get you your man, but if the hamas are not wearing uniform (unlike the Israeli military) then blending in and hiding amongst the civilians makes it an impossibly hard war to win.

i cant agree the hamas operations to fly rockets into civilian regions is justifiable, its a situation you have to address, Israel from what i have read the last years have been bombing targets and firing armaments in gaza in response but no let up from hamas.

its critical for hamas to capture israeli soldiers, for the sole purpose of bargaining with the israelis and applying pressure upon them. israelis would not do the same with any captured hamas operative, they would not threaten to harm them as a means to apply pressure on hamas, israel would follow the geneva convention rules of warfare on any captured hamas operatives.

its gut wrenching to see the damage being done to these people caught in gaza, and like any conflict its only the attention of the media thats politicising the operation. 

right now in the democratic republic of congo a war rages..

this war is "the forgotten war"

the country is one third the size of australia.

56 million people live there

"Its citizens are among the most unfortunate in the world. As Philippe Tanguy - Medecins Sans Frontieres Australia's director of communications - points out, each year his organisation publishes a list of the top 10 most under-reported crises in the world. And each year for the past decade, the Congo has finished in the top three."


*"The United Nations estimates that 3.8 million people died in the last conflict alone, the worst death toll due to conflict since World War II. But no one ever talks about it."*

you are certainly spending a lot of time and effort arguing about a war that imho has been forced upon hamas by the actions hamas has undertaken and was reacted to, civilians casualties are reported and there is extreme sadness there

but who would shed a tear or even passed a single thought towards to 3.8 million souls lost in the last battle alone hey?


----------



## Uncle Barry (7 January 2009)

Mr Lucas,
You also allow your mind, heart and soul to think about the fact

800
children 
have been
KILLED 
or Wounded.

And then tell me you are proud of israel,
tell that is acceptable

or would you like me and many other have thought
to stop and call a truce
would have been better than killing or wounding 800 children.

Both France and Russia have called on israel to stop,
however they will not, 
stop this mindless killing.

So what does this suggest to the World about the jewish people that control israel ?

Does this remind you and others of how Mr Hitler conducted Germany many years ago, because it does to many people around the World.

Please Sir, if you cannot answer these questions, with fair and reasonable answers, then do not lower yourself to Mr Gordon standard and launch a personal attack on me, as this only portrays a sad, sick person with a cold heart and mind to all readers.


----------



## robert toms (7 January 2009)

Damage control for the Israelis...a female spokeswoman has come to the fore.Over the years this happens when their contempt for Palestinian lives is exposed.Intended to soften the situation..
Remember years gone by.
Interviewer...Why did you shoot the child?
Israeli Spokesman...He was carrying a bomb
Interviewer...There is no evidence for that.
Israeli spokesman...He was thinking of carrying a bomb...ha ha ha hee hee hee

The only evidence that the Palestinians use children as human shields comes from the Israelis.
I read somewhere that there were 12 Holocaust films made last year and eight planned for this year so far...


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

UB, how it works is you make a defensible and logical argument and we respond with a counter argument or support for yours.

But if your argument is neither defensible nor logical, but a mere impassioned plea for others to search their hearts (like you have presumably, whereas of course, we haven't), then you must get off your soapbox and go and choose a more appropriate means of ramming your ideas down our throats. Suggest fundamentalist religion; it's got all the ingredients that you'll just love.


----------



## Uncle Barry (7 January 2009)

Dear Mr Lucus, 
as I wrote before, 

"Please Sir, if you cannot answer these questions, with fair and reasonable answers, then do not lower yourself to Mr Gordon standard and launch a personal attack on me, as this only portrays a sad, sick person with a cold heart and mind to all readers."

And sadly you have exposed yourself just like Mr Gordon with an personal attack on myself.

Does the thought of your team in israel killing or wounding 800 children have any effect on you ?
I don't think so, as long as they AREN'T jewish children.

Sick is the best description for the above.

Have you ever thought for one very small moment that all those people who are in some way connected directly to these 800 children, will now not love your israel, in fact they will by now be starting to deeply hate that state that caused the pain and fear, from this point onwards the problems for the jewish people around the World and in israel will only deeper.

No thinking someone, not so clever, as in any modern War you have to win hearts and minds also.

Unless you kill everybody connected, or is that the long term plan, I pray not ! 

ps, woun't you be yelling now if 800 jewish children had been kiiled or wounded 
Yes you are playing the same set of ideas as Mr Gordon.

Myself, I don't want to see or hear about ANY child being hurt.


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

I realise you are having problems with this, but discrediting the "count the dead kids" argument is not direct or even tacit support for Israel's position.


----------



## slim pickins (7 January 2009)

disarray said:


> oh yeah david and goliath, nice analogy. like the entire arab world against israel kind of thing yeah? with the palestinians left holding the bag for the repeated abject failures of their muslim brothers. well done the ummah!




if by "ummah" you mean the whole islamic world.. then i think you are wrong. the whole islamic world is not trying to destroy israel. its the palestinians and certain arabs that refuse to see the logic in peace and economic proseprity.

in fact some islamic countries have very good relaitons with israel and recognsie it in full capacity. turkey for exapmple shares defence techlonogies with israel and trains israeli troops.

islamic countreies that have very good relaitions with israel are azerbaijan, albania, republic of kosovo, bosnia & herzegovina, kazakhstan, jordan, egypt, eritrea, kyrgistan, uzbekistan, tajikistan, indonesia, bahrain, oman, morocco, tunisia and a few others.

several islamic coutnries could theoretically defeat israel mitlitarity. namely, turkey, pakistan, iran & kazakhstan. both convetionally and nuclear strikes. as they all have the know how to develop the bomb and deliver it. (yes i thnk iran has the capabiltiy) and of courese kazakhstan used to have them and could make them again. so your claim of a collective failure of the islamic world to destroy israel is just plain wrong on so many levels.


----------



## Sean K (7 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> several islamic coutnries could theoretically defeat israel mitlitarity. namely, turkey, pakistan, iran & kazakhstan. both convetionally and nuclear strikes. as they all have the know how to develop the bomb and deliver it. (yes i thnk iran has the capabiltiy) and of courese kazakhstan used to have them and could make them again. so your claim of a collective failure of the islamic world to destroy israel is just plain wrong on so many levels.



One or a few of them together could.

Unfortunately you leave out Israel's allies who must be considered as part of their defence....


----------



## rowie (7 January 2009)

There is really no point debating with those that support israeli aggression. In spite of all the facts/stats/numbers that point to decades of horrific oppression by the 4th mightiest military in the world, they still find ways to justify such barbaric actions. The only way they would know the truth is if they were to live in Gaza themselves for a few months and be subjected to what the Gazans have been subjected to. Only then perhaps could they understand the mindset of the Gazans and the actions that they take. Only then perhaps may they be able to grasp the concept of armed struggle in the name of self defence against an enemy that is bent on making your life as miserable and short as possible. As Uncle Barry said, how on earth can you justify the mass murder of hundreds of children, how the hell can anyone not be mortified at this? And disarray chooses to justify it by classifying the palestinians as a race as animal like creatures hell bent on total destruction of israel. If only human nature were that simple, only u fail to realise that there is goodness at the root of most human beings. And most human beings hold goodness at the root of their characters, even palestinians. Think for 1 minute that they too feel and are human like us. But when u are truly pushed to a corner and your life severely threatened and your kids futures seem totally bleak, what do u do>>? U really wouldnt know as u have never ever been there or done that. So dont judge, and never justify mass killings. There is no way that anything positive will come out of this barbaric war, that I can say with certainty.


----------



## Sean K (7 January 2009)

rowie said:


> If only human nature were that simple, only u fail to realise that there is goodness at the root of most human beings. And most human beings hold goodness at the root of their characters, even palestinians.



What if evil is at the root of most human beings?

Why does it have to be goodness?


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

rowie, however impassioned you feel about the barbarity of killing, supporting Hamas over Israel in this conflict is no way to end it.


----------



## rowie (7 January 2009)

kennas said:


> What if evil is at the root of most human beings?
> 
> Why does it have to be goodness?




Kenna, I have in the past considered that evil is at the root of most human beings but based on my experiences I feel that on the whole humans feel alot better about themselves when they carry out acts of goodness. I have associated myself on more than 1 occassion in the past with what we would consider bad people who have carried out acts of goodness and found a whole lot more fulifillment from it. So I feel it is in fact at the core of all humans, but many cant find it or get lost in theyre own egos etc. But really this is a debate for a whole new thread, but I get what your saying.


----------



## slim pickins (7 January 2009)

kennas said:


> One or a few of them together could.
> 
> Unfortunately you leave out Israel's allies who must be considered as part of their defence....




well yes. i guess so. i have just included those with enough nuclear material to create a few nukes. i mean even without any scientists kazakhstan has had enough nuke tests (maybe a thousand or something) that it should be glowing from radiation. all they have to do is bomb someone with the contaminated dirt and its game over.
even if usa was to retaliate against kazakhstan it would kill the 5 milion russians that live there and then usa is toast from russia.

turkey, in its 1000 year history, has never been conquered by anyone. its army has never capitulated. (in fact when it controlled the middle east the palestinians and jews got along quite well.)

iran is debatable. but there is lots we dont know yet.

pakistan is armed and ready to fire off in a minutes notice. but yes it is succeptible to a counterattack by israeli allies.

but as you have said, its implausible that these coutnries would ever fight, and turkey and kazakhstan are evry close allies to israel anyway. and rightly so.

i am just trying to debunk the other posters comment comment about the islamic world failing to destroy israel. which is just worng and inaccurate in so may ways. 

in fact israel has many friends in the islamic world.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 January 2009)

lucas said:


> If you insist on players a numbers game UB, you will have to factor out the number of children that would not have been killed had Hamas not deliberately shielded themselves from attack with children.
> 
> But you ought to be able to see why such arguments are ultimately futile and deliberately provocative. They certainly come nowhere towards proving one side more evil than the other*. It isn't that kind of war.
> 
> * other arguments might, but not the dead kids one




Like has been discussed earlier in this thread, it is almost impossible to leave Gaza. So the human shield argument is one of the most nonsensical I can think of in these circumstances.

A more simple formulation for a basis of sympathy: If you had a kid, on purely safety reasons, would you prefer him or her to live in Gaza or Israel? Why one or the other?


----------



## gordon2007 (7 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> If you had a kid, on purely safety reasons, would you prefer him or her to live in Gaza or Israel? Why one or the other?



Thats a fair question chops. I can understand your concerns. It's pretty fair to say people living in gaza are doing it hard. 

For me the argument is not really who is right or wrong in this war. Personally i think everyone is a loser in war. I think you agree to a point on that too.

My biggest peeve is the way UB just makes up information. For example he keeps saying 800 are killed in this round of the war, he posts a link to support his views, yet the very link he posts has nothing to do with his facts and numbers. 

then when he does respond, he doesn't respond with new facts or data, just with some bizarre responses that have no bearing and make no sense.


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

Well, we should begin by differentiating between a "human shield" tactic and a government shielding itself from attack by installing its offices, bomb-making factories etc. deliberately amidst civilians. But let's take your argument seriously. If it is impossible not to do so (which I doubt, but for argument's sake will assume), isn't that all the more reason to take a different tack to that which Hamas has taken?

I think it is somewhat simplistic to argue that Palestinians cannot - just simply cannot - take better care of their children when they deliberately bait an "oppressor" - not necessarily my word but it's been used often enough to warrant consideration.

At what point does responsibility for one's own kind come into play? I don't side with Israel incidentally, but logic will inform anyone that if you are seriously concerned for your welfare and the welfare of your children, you sign up to a peace process not antagonise the enemy.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> Thats a fair question chops. I can understand your concerns. It's pretty fair to say people living in gaza are doing it hard.
> 
> For me the argument is not really who is right or wrong in this war. Personally i think everyone is a loser in war. I think you agree to a point on that too.



I agree. There has been far too much blood spilt over this tiny bit of land. And any more fighting ensures more for the future.

Israel think they will win, by their measures; increasing territory, securing settlements, weakening Hamas. But they are losing massively internationally, and are only strengthening the resolve against them they are trying to eliminate.



gordon2007 said:


> My biggest peeve is the way UB just makes up information. For example he keeps saying 800 are killed in this round of the war, he posts a link to support his views, yet the very link he posts has nothing to do with his facts and numbers.




I would take the numbers from the NGOs in Gaza over Israeli figures any day of the week. And they aren't good if you want to defend Israel. All that they are needed for is to demonstrate the complete over reaction, and disproportionate response to the threat they face.


The only way Israel can win is if they restore some humanity to the areas they control, thereby reducing the animosity towards them.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Well, we should begin by differentiating between a "human shield" tactic and a government shielding itself from attack by installing its offices, bomb-making factories etc. deliberately amidst civilians. But let's take your argument seriously. If it is impossible not to do so (which I doubt, but for argument's sake will assume), isn't that all the more reason to take a different tack to that which Hamas has taken?




Mate. Gaza is the most densely populated place on earth. What do you want them to do?

But hey, Swanbourne barracks is in Perth. I reckon that's a human shield tactic. 

It was indeed the same rhetoric we heard from Israel when they were attacking Fatah on the West Bank as well. At some point you have to call BS, and question it.



lucas said:


> I think it is somewhat simplistic to argue that Palestinians cannot - just simply cannot - take better care of their children when they deliberately bait an "oppressor" - not necessarily my word but it's been used often enough to warrant consideration.



What do you honestly expect them to do? THEY CANNOT LEAVE! That is a point that I don't think anyone gets. Israel closed their airport, has closed all their borders, has crippled their economy, long before Hamas was in power. So what do you HONESTLY expect them to do?



lucas said:


> At what point does responsibility for one's own kind come into play? I don't side with Israel incidentally, but logic will inform anyone that if you are seriously concerned for your welfare and the welfare of your children, you sign up to a peace process not antagonise the enemy.




You obviously don't read what I say in this thread. Israel is in violation of every agreement it has signed up to over the last few years. It has done nothing to step the aggression. Hence the rise of Hamas, as more peaceful initiatives did absolutely nothing.


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> What do you want them to do?




I would like them next time they are at Camp David or its equivalent, to say YES to the peace process, and by so doing start to enlist the sympathy of more reasonable human beings. Then we can get tough with Israel with right on our i.e. peaceniks' side for once. But it is impossible to side with a people who take up armed struggle in preference to peace.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I would like them next time they are at Camp David or its equivalent, to say YES to the peace process, and by so doing start to enlist the sympathy of more reasonable human beings. Then we can get tough with Israel with right on our i.e. peaceniks' side for once. But it is impossible to side with a people who take up armed struggle in preference to peace.




Ah yeah. 

"The first step on the road map was the appointment of the first-ever Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen,) by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. The United States and Israel demanded that Arafat be neutralized or sidelined in the road map process, claiming that he had not done enough to stop Palestinian attacks against Israelis while in charge. The United States refused to release the road map until a Palestinian Prime Minister was in place. Abbas was appointed on March 19, 2003, clearing the way for the release of the road map's details on April 30, 2003.

On May 12, 2003 it was reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had rejected Israel's main road map requirement, a settlement freeze, as "impossible" due to the need for settlers to build new houses and start families. Ariel Sharon asked then US Secretary of State Colin Powell "What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?".[2]"


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

Arafat failed to sign. Practically everyone in the world gave up listening after that.

If they want the world to get tough with the likes of Sharon et al, they will enlist our sympathy. That did not and is not happening.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Arafat failed to sign. Practically everyone in the world gave up listening after that.
> 
> If they want the world to get tough with the likes of Sharon et al, they will enlist our sympathy. That did not and is not happening.




No. You are completely and utterly wrong.

Arafat had little to do with the 2003 process. What you are referring to is the 2000 Camp David Summit.

The only step Arafat had to take in 2003 was to implement the structure for democracy and appointment of a prime minister that could then be dealt with by Israel and other international bodies. That happened.


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

I think you have just argued my case for me.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I think you have just argued my case for me.




How?

The Palestinians did what was required of them.

As that quote above shows, Israel did not.

Kind of damming that Abbas was appointed on request by Israel, because they could deal with him, yet not prepared to listen or implement any necessary steps proposed by him.


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225036822689&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

My point is not to claim this as truth, but to proffer (again) the point of view that trying to pull everyone over to one side of the issue and one side alone - regardless of the strength of some of those arguments - is to inevitably drag out the conflict for ever more.

This is folly.


----------



## chops_a_must (7 January 2009)

lucas said:


> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225036822689&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
> 
> My point is not to claim this as truth, but to proffer (again) the point of view that trying to pull everyone over to one side of the issue and one side alone - regardless of the strength of some of those arguments - is to inevitably drag out the conflict for ever more.
> 
> This is folly.




Come on mate. You can do better than to reference The Jerusalem Post.

The real problem with the peace process was the assassination of Rabin, and with it the real death of the Oslo accords, as the Israeli right have had control ever since.

I have no doubt we would not be having this discussion had that not happened.


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

I'm not trying to do better, I'm making a point about bias.

But let's end this by agreeing on your last point. Well made.


----------



## Go Nuke (7 January 2009)

Unfortunately I think the killing of people in Gaza is going to acheive nothing but breed hatred in people towards Israel.

I'm not sure when this long standing conflict will end.
Even if the Palastinian were ever squashed, it would just force the die hards underground.

"_War is not about who is right....but who is left_"


----------



## gordon2007 (7 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> I have no doubt we would not be having this discussion had that not happened.





Sure, it's easy to say that because you cannot change history. You cannot possible be 100% sure of that. 

You may wish and feel strongly of something, but you cannot go back into history and say if abc did or didn't happen then xyz would not of happened. 

If you were driving down the road and turned one way, and got into an accident, you can't say for sure you would not have gotten into an accident if you had chosen a different road. 

You're passionate on this subject chops, and that is a good thing. But there is a fine line between being passionate and blindly obtuse.


----------



## roland (7 January 2009)

Rather than get in amongst the debate on who's right or wrong, I'm having trouble understanding something.

If you were a parent, and your city was under attack with bombs, missiles, tank mortars, armed soldiers shooting at stuff - would you be sending your kids out to school?

Knowing that Hamas are drawing fire onto sensitive targets with firing missiles from school grounds etc, wouldn't you be doing something a little different in protecting your loved ones?


----------



## slim pickins (7 January 2009)

roland said:


> Rather than get in amongst the debate on who's right or wrong, I'm having trouble understanding something.
> 
> If you were a parent, and your city was under attack with bombs, missiles, tank mortars, armed soldiers shooting at stuff - would you be sending your kids out to school?
> 
> Knowing that Hamas are drawing fire onto sensitive targets with firing missiles from school grounds etc, wouldn't you be doing something a little different in protecting your loved ones?




Amazing point. Just goes to show the blatant disregard for human life by the Palestinians. You have to blame their leaders for that. 

We need sensible palestinian leaders who will say we are beat, let's make the best peace we can. Hey at least they are offering us peace. 

So what if you lose some land. Austria lost 80% of it's land after ww1. I bet every Palestinian would love to live in Austria. Are austrians doing that badly?

Look at england, it lost an empire that spanned the world. It now occupies a little rock in the north Atlantic that it has to share with Scotland and wales. Are the English doing so badly. 

Make peace!


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

It's difficult to know what to make of anything especially if you choose to sit on the fence. Watching children die from adult human activity is gut-wrenching and always will be.

But so is discovering what Palestinians teach their children in schools:

http://www.pmw.org.il/getresults/political/index.html#i211849

Even if your response is that this is in itself a propaganda website, these are the next US Secretary of State - Hillary Clinton's words. Is she so inextricably bound up with the Jewish lobby?

Isn't it more likely that, yes, these are the type of textbooks in Palestinian schools?

YouTube has plenty of vids of vile racist kid show muck that teaches Palestinian kiddies to hate (even "eat") Jews. What is often worse is reading the comments of people who have viewed this stuff:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8w7_P8wZ0

Isn't this a form of serious child abuse as equally and morally disturbing as kids being blown to bits in wartime?

Actually, please tell me it's all Jewish propaganda and I'll sleep better. But spare me the line that this is the inevitable reaction to decades of oppression. It is the reaction; OK, I'll buy that, but inevitable? I don't think so.

So to respond to your question, roland, it's what they learn in school that is deeply disturbing to me. Is that why they are sent there in time of war?


----------



## Boggo (7 January 2009)

*Independent.ie
Israel's problems are due to its enlightened founders*

_The death toll from Gaza is of course, shocking, dreadful, unspeakable; though it does not compare with the death toll amongst Israelis if Hamas had its way.

Recurring in the current debate are allegations about the terrible deeds Israelis did in 1948. But that is history. That some of these wrongs done to Arabs might have been prompted by local Arab support for the invading Arab armies is irrelevant. Historical injustices were certainly done in the formation of the Israeli state.

However, far greater wrongs were inflicted in 1945 on the Poles of Eastern Poland, and on the Germans of East Prussia, the Baltic and of the Sudetenland. We can go back a further quarter of a century, and look at the fate of the Christians of Anatolia, and the Turks of Crete and Thessalonika, or even, at a far lesser level, of the Catholics of West and North Belfast and the Protestants of Cork, who in different degrees were dispossessed, murdered, and exiled.

What was the difference between all those expulsions, and the expulsion -- let us settle for the word -- of some Arabs from what was to become Israel? It is that the exiles found homes in the states to which they had fled, and there they were allowed to work, and become full and active citizens. Turkey absorbed the Greek Turks, Greece absorbed Anatolia's Orthodox Christians, impoverished post-war Germany absorbed the millions of Balts, Sudetens and Prussians, the Free State absorbed the Northerners, (even appointing one of them, Dan McKenna, the head of the Army).

But not Israel's neighbours. No, they herded their fellow Arabs (not then known as Palestinians) from the former Ottoman province of Palestine into displaced persons camps, and kept them there. Not for months, but for decades, causing all kinds of political, cultural and moral claustrophobia. It was in these camps that the modern notion of "Palestinian" was born. And though we hear a lot about the walls between Israel and Gaza and Israel and the West Bank, we don't hear much about the walls between those densely populated Arab territories, and the neighbouring countries of Jordan and Egypt. Arab brotherhood becomes mysteriously indistinct whenever it requires solid gestures, rather than words.

The Israelis were told by the UN to leave Gaza. They left Gaza. Their reward has been to have had thousands of missiles fired into half a dozen of their cities from the territory they abandoned. And how many demonstrations have the grisly cast of showbiz anti-Israelis mounted to protest at these deliberate acts of indiscriminate terrorism? Let me ask you another question, with a comparable answer: How many Jews are there in Hamas?

Dear old Hamas, whose foot-soldiers are fed and supplied by EU and UN humanitarian aid, and armed from across the border with Egypt (which, naturally, is otherwise sealed to prevent Palestinians from leaving Gaza). It is admirably honest on one issue: it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and to the extermination of the Jewish infidels in Palestine. So, the bombardment of Israel by Hamas terrorists is not a temporary nuisance, but the first step of a genocidal strategy.

And whereas the overwhelming majority of Israelis would regret the terrible slaughter of, say, the five Balousha sisters by an Israeli bomb, Hamas would rejoice in a comparable massacre of five Jewish girls. Moreover, I suspect I will win few friends by pointing out that the Balousha family had initially left their home, right next to a Hamas-controlled mosque, after the Israelis announced (as they often do, to minimise civilian casualties) that all such mosques would be targets for their bombers. But the girls' father, Ibrahim, then decided to take his chances back at home, where the sisters were killed by falling rubble when the mosque was bombed, just as the Israelis said it would be.

Such pathological and tragic fatalism in the face of an almost certain outcome defies all rational analysis. However, it does make stunning propaganda for the global anti-Israeli lobby. Moreover, all the arguments about the "proportionality" of the Israeli response are meaningless. Hamas can do what it likes, without serious rebuke or protests from the western intelligentsia and assorted celebrities: it is only when the Israelis reply to the insufferable provocation of Hamas-missile attacks that we suddenly hear the endless recitation of the P-word.

But 'proportionality' is a meaningless and largely theological concept: what is a proportionate reply to 8,000 missiles being fired into the defenceless civilian populations of so many Israeli cities?

Israel's current problems exist because its founders largely behaved like enlightened Jews, rather than as Communists and Nazis, or even as earlier generations of Americans or Australians had done. The Israelis didn't expel all the defeated peoples from their lands, but instead, let many stay. In other words, they didn't seek the kind of outcome which the Romans inflicted upon Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War. And that's the real point about that much-maligned thing, a Carthaginian Peace. For one tended not to hear very much from the Carthaginian Liberation Organisation thereafter._


----------



## chops_a_must (7 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> Sure, it's easy to say that because you cannot change history. You cannot possible be 100% sure of that.
> 
> You're passionate on this subject chops, and that is a good thing. But there is a fine line between being passionate and blindly obtuse.




Would have thought being passionate about something would make me more inclined to be too acute than anything.

I should have qualified why this single event was such a crushing blow to the peace effort. I am not naive enough to think that this was the only event leading to breakdowns in peace, but it was perhaps the most significant.

At that moment in time, moderates were in control of the Israeli parliament, with defined links to external human rights concerns.

At the same time, Arafat had more control over the military groups within Palestine. Probably more so than any time since.

After Rabin's death, the lack of progress meant that many of the partially under control militant groups could not be sated, with the prospect of a lack of trade offs for a significant amount of time. Netanyahu's election, the result of none other than Hamas' actions , put in place a process where Israeli parliament is not likely to be controlled by any other than the far right for the foreseeable future.

The rapid expansion in settlers and settlements, under Netanyahu and Sharon, and the structure of Israeli parliament, means that the far right look to have control for quite some time to come. And that now is a very dangerous double sided sword. Settlements and expansion are the biggest issues with Israel, yet they are needed for a party to be elected.

Couple that with the radicalisation of the muslim world earlier this decade, the complete breakdown of any authority that the militant groups will respect, and you now have two sides that wont accept peace. Palestinian areas strike me as anarchic, which means there is virtually no authority to deal with. Maybe that's what Israel intended... who knows?

But it's almost like having Fred Nile and Sheikh Taj el-Din al-Hilali, and trying to get them to agree to a charter on the way society should operate. It's never going to happen. 

On both sides of the fence, it is fundamentalist religion that is the problem. And why I'm attributing that single event as the most crucial. As at the time, both sides were largely controlled by an ideology not completely overrun by fundamentalism.

I mean, this is a pretty rudimentary explanation of my thoughts, but as you can see, the conditions at the time were the most ideal for a more acceptable outcome. They certainly don't look like appearing any time soon.

Cheers.



roland said:


> Rather than get in amongst the debate on who's right or wrong, I'm having trouble understanding something.
> 
> If you were a parent, and your city was under attack with bombs, missiles, tank mortars, armed soldiers shooting at stuff - would you be sending your kids out to school?
> 
> Knowing that Hamas are drawing fire onto sensitive targets with firing missiles from school grounds etc, wouldn't you be doing something a little different in protecting your loved ones?






slim pickins said:


> Amazing point. Just goes to show the blatant disregard for human life by the Palestinians. You have to blame their leaders for that.




I surely hope you guys are only pretending to be that stupid. Because if you aren't, I wonder how you are able to cognise day to day goings.



> In a tragedy, which has provoked international outrage, Israeli strikes overnight killed Palestinian civilians sheltered in a school run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
> 
> The school and other facilities run by the Agency provide education, healthcare and emergency aid to close to 500,000 refugees in Gaza.
> 
> ...


----------



## lucas (7 January 2009)

How can you be 99% certain no militants at the school? That is an irrational statement if there ever was one. He obviously doesn't really know.


----------



## chops_a_must (8 January 2009)

lucas said:


> How can you be 99% certain no militants at the school? That is an irrational statement if there ever was one. He obviously doesn't really know.



Because he would most likely have workers on the ground there... 

From the same interview:



> There are large explosions, for whatever reasons, in which 40 people are now killed. And that is why we, in UNWRA, are calling for an impartial investigation as part of the process long-term of ensuring the neutrality of United Nations installations.
> 
> We have to investigate. And of course we at UNWRA are not being defensive about this. We want to know ourselves if there were militants within our facilities.
> 
> If there were, let's investigate, let's find out why this - if it is true - went wrong. Though as I say, we're 99.9 per cent certain it didn't. But, you know, in that 0.1 per cent of probability of whatever, if something did- if something like that did happen we want to find out to stop it happening again.


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

Now come on. Simple reasoning. You either know something or you don't. If you are very sure of something, very very very sure of something (it's now 99.9% and rising!) then you admit that you don't really know what you know...if you allow that 0.1% to dissuade you from believing wholeheartedly.

This sort of comment is unhelpful when trying to ascertain the truth of the matter.


----------



## chops_a_must (8 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Now come on. Simple reasoning. You either know something or you don't. If you are very sure of something, very very very sure of something (it's now 99.9% and rising!) then you admit that you don't really know what you know...if you allow that 0.1% to dissuade you from believing wholeheartedly.
> 
> This sort of comment is unhelpful when trying to ascertain the truth of the matter.




Rubbish. All it would mean was that they have had contact with some of the workers there, and not all, or all there, but not from their workers nearby.

I know if I was a civilian there, if I knew militants were near me and firing, I would **** off faster than you could say, "Death to Israel". I'm sure the people taking refuge there, fleeing from exactly that, would be smarter than that.


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

It means he will be highly embarrassed if it is found to be the case and he's covering his ****. It's just a moronic statement. Mind you, he's had a worse day than most of us.


----------



## chops_a_must (8 January 2009)

lucas said:


> It means he will be highly embarrassed if it is found to be the case and he's covering his ****. It's just a moronic statement. Mind you, he's had a worse day than most of us.




I don't see why he would feel the need to do that.

In the same interview he was absolutely scathing of Hamas.


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

Good night!


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 January 2009)

> The tactic is a “win-win” for Hamas



http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129267
Hamas uses the populace as human shields according to the article.


----------



## robert toms (8 January 2009)

Interesting that the Israelis know everything that goes on in Gaza....definitive info on human shields ,arms cachments...but were never able to stop militants firing rockets.
Maybe their information falls well short of their propaganda?
If we want any info on human shields it would have to come from an independent source eg the UN...certainly not from Israelis.
They have,and do,use any tactic to justify their slaughter.


----------



## Sean K (8 January 2009)

robert toms said:


> Interesting that the Israelis know everything that goes on in Gaza....definitive info on human shields ,arms cachments...but were never able to stop militants firing rockets.
> Maybe their information falls well short of their propaganda?
> If we want any info on human shields it would have to come from an independent source eg the UN...certainly not from Israelis.
> They have,and do,use any tactic to justify their slaughter.



They don't know everything, but I'm sure they know a lot.

MOSSAD and Aman are possibly better equipped, trained and informed than MI6 and the CIA put together. 

You probably haven't heard about the multitude of attempted attacks on Israel that were foiled because of intelligence secracy. 

However, they will make mistakes.

The UN providing intelligence of where human shields, weapons cahes, and rockets are? LMAO. 

Neither side is innocent here, but the Israelis seem to be selecting military targets based on some sort of intelligence. Hamas seem to be firing rockets TOTALLY indiscimanetly into civilian targets. 

That is where the difference lies in this conflict. 

One is a military organisation conducting war according to the Geneva Conventions. (From what I've seen)

One is a declared terrorist organisation.


----------



## dutchie (8 January 2009)

Worth a read -
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...isoned-homeland/2009/01/07/1231004100045.html


----------



## mayk (8 January 2009)

An interesting read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine


> How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe
> Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army and has never questioned the state's legitimacy. But its merciless assault on Gaza has led him to devastating conclusions
> 
> .........................................................................................
> ...


----------



## The Muffin Man (8 January 2009)

With regards to the UN school shelling/bombing;

I understand that the UN has people on the ground and for the most part displays neutrality, so their version of events has to be respected and thought of as truthful. This does not mean the version given by the UN observers is whole in nature, or completely correct.

What I don't understand is the logic behind the IDF's decision to shell the compound if there was no provocation from the area.

Hamas is unable to inflict military defeat upon Israel, I think everyone can agree on that. Hamas will have victories, but the superior military will win the day. So I ask myself, what kind of victory can Hamas achieve? A victory based on perception of course. Try and paint the IDF and Israel as a whole as an evil monster that does nothing but bombard innocent civilians, and you get international condemnation and a whirlwind of hatred towards Israel. A very good strategy. How would one go about painting Israel as such a monster? Do things like fire upon advancing Israeli troops from compounds containing civilians/children, and fight the war from densly civilian populated areas. Israeli troops will fire back, and thus civilian casualties arise. This strategy makes complete and logical sense to me. Hamas can only win this round of incursion through outside condemnation of Israeli actions, and through further build up of hatred towards Israel within the immediate region. (Much the same as their method of continual provocation through the firing of thousands of mortars and missiles into Israeli cities and towns)

What does not make any sense to me is that the IDF would, for no reason, fire upon a UN compound/school. Ask yourself what would Israel gain from such actions? What would they be hoping to achieve? There isn't a logical explanation for such an attack, it does not help the IDF to obtain it's objectives for this incursion, if anything it hinders it's objectives by placing further pressure on the Israeli Government to withdraw from Gaza. Now this attack could have been human error, but I doubt it. I don't see a logical reason behind why the IDF would fire on a UN school if there were no immediate threat coming from that area.

I would expect further events like this, because to me it looks as though there may be in place a concerted strategy employed by Hamas whereby they will try and stir up as much rage/condemnation directed towards Israel as possible. One way to do this is draw fire upon areas where civilians are congregated. An Israeli tactic of firing indiscriminately upon civilians and killing/wounding them doesn't seem a logical tactic, I don't see what positives Israel would gain from such a tactic, it would be more to their detriment so I don't see why they would actively follow that train of thought.


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

mayk's link to the Guardian is interesting, but you get the gist of where this guy is coming from when you read this paragraph:



> Israel likes to portray itself as an island of democracy in a sea of authoritarianism. Yet Israel has never in its entire history done anything to promote democracy on the Arab side and has done a great deal to undermine it. Israel has a long history of secret collaboration with reactionary Arab regimes to suppress Palestinian nationalism. Despite all the handicaps, the Palestinian people succeeded in building the only genuine democracy in the Arab world with the possible exception of Lebanon. In January 2006, free and fair elections for the Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority brought to power a Hamas-led government. Israel, however, refused to recognise the democratically elected government, claiming that Hamas is purely and simply a terrorist organisation.




Polemics anyone?


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

roland said:


> Rather than get in amongst the debate on who's right or wrong, I'm having trouble understanding something.
> 
> If you were a parent, and your city was under attack with bombs, missiles, tank mortars, armed soldiers shooting at stuff - would you be sending your kids out to school?
> 
> Knowing that Hamas are drawing fire onto sensitive targets with firing missiles from school grounds etc, wouldn't you be doing something a little different in protecting your loved ones?




This is an amazing point. So you have an army bombing the hell out of a city and the ones to blame are the people sending their kids to school during this bombing campaign. What a twisted view on the matter. For Your Information Roland - no schools were in operation during this bombing campaign, people, children were camped in these schools as many of them are run by the UN and they were seeking shelter there rather than staying at home which is in theyre minds far riskier than staying at home and rightly so. Do you seriously believe that they intentionally were sending theyre kids to school to potentially be killed to elicit sympathy from the international community? This is a warped viewpoint - you are actually implying that these people are almost sub-human.


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

It's yet to be determined why the UN school was attacked. Any fair-minded person would not leap to judgement before the attack was fully investigated.

The Muffin Man's point, meanwhile, is valid. There has to be motive/incentive in any deliberate action. It's hard to see why this would be a deliberate target.

I don't believe Palestinians are sub-human per se, but certain acts both sides have committed are inhumane. Teaching your children to "eat Jews" must be one of them.


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

lucas said:


> It's yet to be determined why the UN school was attacked. Any fair-minded person would not leap to judgement before the attack was fully investigated.
> 
> The Muffin Man's point, meanwhile, is valid. There has to be motive/incentive in any deliberate action. It's hard to see why this would be a deliberate target.
> 
> I don't believe Palestinians are sub-human per se, but certain acts both sides have committed are inhumane. Teaching your children to "eat Jews" must be one of them.




Well the bottom line is that for every israeli child that is killed in this conflict 10 palestinian children are killed. Again, I am not diminishing the importance of lives on either side, to me 1 life lost is too many. However on the balance of suffering and brutality alone, israels infliction is much greater and more horrendous. So you can provide a whole lot of quotes but as I have said before, the stats speak for themselves.


----------



## roland (8 January 2009)

rowie said:


> This is an amazing point. So you have an army bombing the hell out of a city and the ones to blame are the people sending their kids to school during this bombing campaign. What a twisted view on the matter. For Your Information Roland - no schools were in operation during this bombing campaign, people, children were camped in these schools as many of them are run by the UN and they were seeking shelter there rather than staying at home which is in theyre minds far riskier than staying at home and rightly so. Do you seriously believe that they intentionally were sending theyre kids to school to potentially be killed to elicit sympathy from the international community? This is a warped viewpoint - you are actually implying that these people are almost sub-human.




I wasn't making any conclusions on what people were doing. I was asking whether others would be doing something different. 

There seems to be so many experts here on the area that seem to have intimate knowledge on gaza City and the people that I thought I would ask.

It's also not appreciated to try and guess what my viewpoint is, and then to make judgements against that guess. I reject your conclusions.

Carry On!


----------



## chops_a_must (8 January 2009)

lucas said:


> It's yet to be determined why the UN school was attacked. Any fair-minded person would not leap to judgement before the attack was fully investigated.




Israel has already ruled out an independent investigation of it. Make of that what you will.

I don't see why it can't just be seen as a balls up. The UN gives co-ordinates of its centres to the IDF, so either Israel has verifiable evidence of why it attacked, or it borderlines a war crime and act of aggression against a neutral party if it doesn't, or isn't open and honest about it.


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

It is an horrendous statistic, rowie, you are right. It doesn't alter the understanding that you cannot draw out who is ultimately right and wrong from such a stat.


----------



## chops_a_must (8 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> Hamas is unable to inflict military defeat upon Israel, I think everyone can agree on that. Hamas will have victories, but the superior military will win the day. So I ask myself, what kind of victory can Hamas achieve? A victory based on perception of course. Try and paint the IDF and Israel as a whole as an evil monster that does nothing but bombard innocent civilians, and you get international condemnation and a whirlwind of hatred towards Israel. A very good strategy. How would one go about painting Israel as such a monster?




Rejecting a viable peace strategy is a far greater negative for Israel.

Hamas has proposed a return to 1967 borders as a basis for the Palestinian state, and an end to the war... just as just about every peace proposal has.

Peace is there for the taking if Israel actually _want_ it bad enough.


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

lucas said:


> It is an horrendous statistic, rowie, you are right. It doesn't alter the understanding that you cannot draw out who is ultimately right and wrong from such a stat.




You are right that you cant draw based on these stats who is right and wrong. Clearly this can be determined by looking at the fact that the Palestinians are under occupation and control and that land that is rightfully theirs has been taken away from them. And every UN resolution since 1967 recognises this and recognises the right for palestinians to claim this land. And yet Israel does not comply and in fact takes more land. Simple enough to conclude who is right and wrong.


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

rowie, it all sounds fair and reasonable up until the point where you decide one side is right and the other is wrong.

What will it take for you to see that THIS attitude IS the problem? Even if you were correct, and there is ample evidence that you are not, but even if you were, what hope do you give the "wrong" side capitulating and saying political sorry? Or making concessions they are unwilling to make already?

It is inane to consider that this will happen.

The Vietnam War ended not because one side was right or wrong, but because one side lost. Is that what you want in this war? Israel cannot lose this war or they cease to exist. That is one reason they are so intransigent.

The only hope is for an immediate ceasefire, and more dialogue.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (8 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Neither side is innocent here, but the Israelis seem to be selecting military targets based on some sort of intelligence. Hamas seem to be firing rockets TOTALLY indiscimanetly into civilian targets.
> 
> That is where the difference lies in this conflict.
> 
> ...




A bit biased there perhaps. Who declares terrorist organisations anyway? One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter?

What would you do if a group of people decided, without consulting you, that your house and suburb would become a religious enclave/state, and you were required to obtain permission to go to your job, visit relatives etc all the while being denied basic human services. At some stage you would decide to do something about it, probably after the invaders had just shot your parents/relatives for trying to get food.

And the toll so far - 600 Palestinians to 10 Israeli's (2 from friendly fire) - is that part of the Geneva convention, to commit a slow genocide then smash them with superior military power?

Israel has seen the writing on the wall, and that their support base is slowly being undermined by the global recession. 

It's hardly an even battle is it? A population subject to slow genocide by an invading army backed by the most powerful country on earth. If there is one consolation from the global financial crisis is that the Jewish power base in the US will also be severely diminished in it's influence over foreign policy. Israel is already bankrupt, & relies solely on the US and allies for it's existence. I am ashamed that my government also has been a party to Israel's continued legitimacy - they certainly don't speak on my behalf. 



rowie said:


> You are right that you cant draw based on these stats who is right and wrong. Clearly this can be determined by looking at the fact that the Palestinians are under occupation and control and that land that is rightfully theirs has been taken away from them. And every UN resolution since 1967 recognises this and recognises the right for palestinians to claim this land. And yet Israel does not comply and in fact takes more land. Simple enough to conclude who is right and wrong.




Correct & to the point - it is incumbent upon Israel, the invading aggressors, to realise that it is they who are required to yeild for peace.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 January 2009)

robert toms said:


> Interesting that the Israelis know everything that goes on in Gaza....*definitive info on human shields ,arms cachments...but were never able to stop militants firing rockets.*
> Maybe their information falls well short of their propaganda?
> If we want any info on human shields it would have to come from an independent source eg the UN...certainly not from Israelis.
> They have,and do,use any tactic to justify their slaughter.



I believe it is reasonable to understand that information can be gathered without the ability to physically stop that which is known. So it seems they are now stopping it as they have every right to.
Here is what happened as a result of the info gathering:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129273 


> Hamas Executes Gaza Residents for Helping Israel


----------



## tigerboi (8 January 2009)

*Re:Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



lucas said:


> The only hope is for an immediate ceasefire, and more dialogue.




some of you people are unreal...take your rose coloured glasses off...






what you have is a islamic militia 50% voted by the gazans,then they took over in a coup...intent is obvious.holding the population to ransom.

hamas will never reounounce violence & do not recognise israel...

anyone who thinks dialogue & smoking the peace pipe between these 2 will solve the problems is deluding themselves...big time

in the long run the israelis are doing the gazans a huge favour...getting rid of these gangsters...& dont start this wasis bs as this has got nothing to do with race its all about idealolgy race means not a thing...any ceasefire will only give hamas time to regroup now Is the time to crush them for good...tb


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



tigerboi said:


> some of you people are unreal...take your rose coloured glasses off...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





In the 2006 elections, Hamas actually won 74 seats to Fatahs 45. It was accurately considered a landslide victory for Hamas. So please check your facts and make an informed comment with accurate information. It is misleading otherwise. Hamas has alot of support as they spend a large portion of their annual budget (which isnt much) on various social welfare and education programmes within the occupied territories. Further, Hamas are well regarded by Palestinians for its efficiency and perceived lack of corruption compared to Fatah. So please dont paint an inaccurate picture by saying they are a bunch of gangsters, it is totally inaccurate.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



rowie said:


> In the 2006 elections, Hamas actually won 74 seats to Fatahs 45. It was accurately considered a landslide victory for Hamas. So please check your facts and make an informed comment with accurate information. It is misleading otherwise. Hamas has alot of support as they spend a large portion of their annual budget (which isnt much) on various social welfare and *education programmes* within the occupied territories. Further, Hamas are well regarded by Palestinians for its efficiency and perceived lack of corruption compared to Fatah. So please dont paint an inaccurate picture by saying they are a bunch of gangsters, it is totally inaccurate.



Hello rowie,

With respect to the education programmes to what extent is the teaching of peace and tolerance part of the curriculum? And on child abuse and war crimes perpetrated by Hamas (where is the left, have they gone silent on real issues?) to what extent is that not part of the curriculum in their education programmes? 
I'll draw your attention to child abuse in Hamas land:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=JhVDwrfoTOg

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=s70KlZwb9RE&feature=related


----------



## tigerboi (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*

rowie...you make me laugh!excuse me ill just amend that 50% to 50%+ will i?

as i said...get real & take the rose coloured glasses off.have a real good hard look at the problem instead of the usual propaganda getting put about.

well regarded,social welfare etc...your embarrassing yourself,take a val & have a lay down...actually make that a rowie



tigerboi said:


> some of you people are unreal...take your rose coloured glasses off...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

Cute dog.

All wars end in dialogue. The least damaging are those which start earlier.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Hello rowie,
> 
> With respect to the education programmes to what extent is the teaching of peace and tolerance part of the curriculum? And on child abuse and war crimes perpetrated by Hamas (where is the left, have they gone silent on real issues?) to what extent is that not part of the curriculum in their education programmes?
> I'll draw your attention to child abuse in Hamas land:
> ...




The education continues:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=FsuF1it68tg&feature=related
A bee replaces the mouse.


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



tigerboi said:


> rowie...you make me laugh!excuse me ill just amend that 50% to 50%+ will i?
> 
> as i said...get real & take the rose coloured glasses off.have a real good hard look at the problem instead of the usual propaganda getting put about.
> 
> well regarded,social welfare etc...your embarrassing yourself,take a val & have a lay down...actually make that a rowie




Your a joke who clearly is ill informed or has not taken the time or effort to educate yourself. The only one wearing glasses that is warping your viewpoint is you. Propoganda - seems the one swallowing it hook line and sinker is you. Get informed on the issues and facts first, dont bother otherwise. You and your rose coloured glasses...pffft.


----------



## tigerboi (8 January 2009)

explain this rowie


----------



## disarray (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



rowie said:


> Get informed on the issues and facts first, dont bother otherwise.




whose issues and facts? just the ones that suit your perception?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



rowie said:


> Your a joke who clearly is ill informed or has not taken the time or effort to educate yourself. The only one wearing glasses that is warping your viewpoint is you. Propoganda - seems the one swallowing it hook line and sinker is you. *Get informed on the issues and facts first, dont bother otherwise.* You and your rose coloured glasses...pffft.



This video from Youtube shall show what is informative:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=pJDNXztFmS0&feature=related


----------



## tigerboi (8 January 2009)

and this...what a sick joke... & thx to snake for the links...


----------



## chops_a_must (8 January 2009)

lucas said:


> What will it take for you to see that THIS attitude IS the problem? Even if you were correct, and there is ample evidence that you are not, but even if you were, what hope do you give the "wrong" side capitulating and saying political sorry? Or making concessions they are unwilling to make already?
> 
> The Vietnam War ended not because one side was right or wrong, but because one side lost. Is that what you want in this war? *Israel cannot lose this war or they cease to exist.* That is one reason they are so intransigent.



No. That is the problematic attitude.

If they honour the 1967 borders, I doubt a lot of this would be an issue. 

And to the other videos... I mean... there are things on both sides just as evil.


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

Boi, I cant open any of your links


----------



## tigerboi (8 January 2009)

*Re:hamas brainwashing kids still*

This is what ive been saying about generations of brainwashing...it is this idealolgy that cannot be bargained with in our lifetime...

snake...put the square brackets around the 11 characters after the = for the youtube embed(youtube)pJDNXztFmS0(/youtube)
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=pJDNXztFmS0

when i say have a good hard look at the problem...here it is


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

Tigerboi you goose, try looking up videos of IDF terror to get an unbiased view. Then make an assessment. Dont fall for mainstream media propoganda.


----------



## tigerboi (8 January 2009)

dont go getting personal...NUMNUT





tigerboi said:


> some of you people are unreal...take your rose coloured glasses off...


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

tigerboi said:


> dont go getting personal...NUMNUT




I use that term affectionately...


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

Yes, chops, the fact that Israel cannot lose the war is problematic, but knowing this or acting upon this does not solve much.

At present, my view is that taking sides is the problem - and it will always be the problem - long after you and I have shuffled off our mortal coil. Unless, and it's a very big not if...the war you are fighting is against such pure evil that you are faced with no alternative. It's not my argument - it's the Dietrich Bonhoeffer argument. He took sides, but only acted after immense intellectual internal discussion.

I don't yet believe either side in this war - this very long war - is pure evil, Nahoul the Bee notwithstanding. They can still discuss their differences.


----------



## IFocus (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



rowie said:


> In the 2006 elections, Hamas actually won 74 seats to Fatahs 45. It was accurately considered a landslide victory for Hamas. So please check your facts and make an informed comment with accurate information. It is misleading otherwise. Hamas has alot of support as they spend a large portion of their annual budget (which isnt much) on various social welfare and education programmes within the occupied territories. Further, Hamas are well regarded by Palestinians for its efficiency and perceived lack of corruption compared to Fatah. So please dont paint an inaccurate picture by saying they are a bunch of gangsters, it is totally inaccurate.




This was raised by Chops also that Hamas won a democratic election which is true but unfortunately they also staged a coup in 2007 killing many during the process. Hamas held territory is in no way currently a democracy nor will it ever be. 

There is no moral right or wrong in this conflict regardless of the horrors of children being maimed and killed as either side could stop the conflict immediately.

Its clearly been decided by both sides that this is an acceptable out come if they can achieve victory.

Whats victory?


----------



## chops_a_must (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



IFocus said:


> This was raised by Chops also that Hamas won a democratic election which is true but unfortunately they also staged a coup in 2007 killing many during the process. Hamas held territory is in no way currently a democracy nor will it ever be.



Even as an opponent of Hamas, I'm yet to be convinced the actions in Gaza supposedly instigated by them, actually were.


----------



## IFocus (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



chops_a_must said:


> Even as an opponent of Hamas, I'm yet to be convinced the actions in Gaza supposedly instigated by them, actually were.




Yes who knows its a murky part of the world that many try to paint as black and white.

Really good summary from Stratfor about Hamas and the Arab States relationship, (I get the odd free bait report)

They make the point Hamas is currently an Iran proxy along with  Hezbollah and that the Arabs don't like Iran playing in their back yard.



> The reaction from the Arab world has been mixed. On the one hand, a look at the so-called Arab street will reveal an angry scene of chanting protesters, burning flags and embassy attacks in protest of Israel’s actions. The principal Arab regimes, however, have either kept quiet or publicly condemned Hamas for the crisis ”” while privately often expressing their support for Israel’s bid to weaken the radical Palestinian group.






> Despite the much-hyped Arab nationalist solidarity often cited in the name of Palestine, most Arab regimes actually have little love for the Palestinians. While these countries like keeping the Palestinian issue alive for domestic consumption and as a tool to pressure Israel and the West when the need arises, in actuality, they tend to view Palestinian refugees ”” and more Palestinian radical groups like Hamas ”” as a threat to the stability of their regimes.






> the Arab states ironically are looking to Israel to ensure that Hamas remains boxed in




The Palestinians always just looked like cannon fodder to me.......


----------



## Aussiejeff (8 January 2009)

*** NEWS FLASH***



> THREE to four rockets have hit northern Israel from Lebanon, military sources say.
> Five people were slightly wounded when the projectiles fell around the area of the northern town of Nahariya, Israeli media reported.



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24888122-5005961,00.html

This could be a significant escalation?


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

I've always thought this would escalate (BWDIK?). I can't imagine they won't take out Iran's nuke-making factories while the iron's hot. Before or after Obama's shoed in?


----------



## chops_a_must (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



IFocus said:


> The Palestinians always just looked like cannon fodder to me.......



Yes, unfortunately as long as the Palestinians are radicalised, the Arab world will not generally support them.

BUT... neighbouring states will also not accept complete borders with Israel, as they know Israel has no intention on restricting its own territories.

So for now, the Palestinians serve as a buffer, as the other neighbours don't want direct conflict with Israel. They know as long as the Palestinians are there, their own territorial borders will not be compromised. But once they are gone, they are in trouble.

So it becomes a matter of subterfuge as to what they do, and who they support, depending on their own safety concerns.

The big play on the West Bank will eventually be the Jordan Valley. It is the only reason Israel refuse to concede there. All hell will break loose if Israel decide to take on the peaceful Jordanians in its sovereignty of the greater area.


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



IFocus said:


> This was raised by Chops also that Hamas won a democratic election which is true but unfortunately they also staged a coup in 2007 killing many during the process. Hamas held territory is in no way currently a democracy nor will it ever be.
> 
> There is no moral right or wrong in this conflict regardless of the horrors of children being maimed and killed as either side could stop the conflict immediately.
> 
> ...




Well I guess it is ultimately the fault of the palestinian population for electing the 'wrong' party in the 06 elections. For what followed was a decision by the US and israel to collectively punish gazans for their silly choice and starve them by cutting off aid to NGO's that run a life line to occupied Gaza whilst at the same time fire missiles at them. (Refer to palestinian body count for year 06). And how dare Hamas fight to gain what was rightfully theirs when US backed coup in 2007 was thwarted by Hamas who rightfully gained control of Gaza (having won the elections a year earlier). So what Hamas really should  have done after winning the elections is said - 'Well regardless of whether we won, the Americans and Israelis dont want us leading the country so we should just listen to what they say and allow the same repression to continue without putting up a fight'. Thats a joke


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

Don't fret guys - Bush has gone to secure peace...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/08/ST2008010801585.html?sid=ST2008010801585


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

Sorry I'm a dumbass - still not used to this 2009 thingie... (funny how the news still reads current!)


----------



## mayk (8 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Don't fret guys - Bush has gone to secure peace...
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/08/ST2008010801585.html?sid=ST2008010801585




Inspite of the killing and agony, I find this comment amusing :
LucyLou1 wrote:
Translation: (original Bu****e to Hebrew) Screw those filthy A-rabs. We're gonna fabricate a war with Iran, and let them Jews have whatever they want. Jeesus was one of them Jews, and I'm with Jeesus. A-men. Hallay-freakin-looyah.....


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

Is it true that Palestine first came into existence as an act of renaming c/o Hadrian?

http://livingjourney.wordpress.com/2006/03/17/jesus-the-palestinianok-then/



> Hadrian wanted all Jewish identity to be obliterated and that is when he renamed "Judea" to "Syria Palaestina" - Palestine - after the Jews' historic enemies, the Philistines, a non-Semitic sea people from the eastern Mediterranean or Aegean area.




Anyone know differently? (Trust me - I am the Internet)


----------



## chops_a_must (8 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Is it true that Palestine first came into existence as an act of renaming c/o Hadrian?
> 
> http://livingjourney.wordpress.com/2006/03/17/jesus-the-palestinianok-then/
> 
> ...



Not sure what your point is...

Palestine has always "existed". AFAIK it referred to what is now generally the Gaza Strip now, but is now just a generic term for what were many various kingdoms over time.

But yeah, Hadrian did put down hundreds of thousands of Jews after occupation and suppression and their retaliation and murder of many many Romans. The irony is not lost on me.

Anyway, this footage isn't for the faint of heart, i.e. it has footage of a kid dying:

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/01/07/ac.nasr.gaza.arab.viewers.cnn


----------



## IFocus (8 January 2009)

*Re: Time to take of the rose coloured glasses people*



rowie said:


> Well I guess it is ultimately the fault of the palestinian population for electing the 'wrong' party in the 06 elections. For what followed was a decision by the US and israel to collectively punish gazans for their silly choice and starve them by cutting off aid to NGO's that run a life line to occupied Gaza whilst at the same time fire missiles at them. (Refer to palestinian body count for year 06). And how dare Hamas fight to gain what was rightfully theirs when US backed coup in 2007 was thwarted by Hamas who rightfully gained control of Gaza (having won the elections a year earlier). So what Hamas really should  have done after winning the elections is said - 'Well regardless of whether we won, the Americans and Israelis dont want us leading the country so we should just listen to what they say and allow the same repression to continue without putting up a fight'. Thats a joke




Rowie not here to chose sides the whole thing is a mess just like Israel likes it.

Hamas although Suni is a proxy of Iran, Iran much like the Arab world are not really big fans of Palestinians other than to use them to poke sticks at Israel.

Israels behavior is well documented

I just cannot see how Hamas has furthered the cause or that they are really acting on the behalf of the people of Gaza.

You say put up a fight all I see is cannon fodder for foreign powers and dead children not to mention another generation full of hate.


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

OK, chops - so you don't know. I'm asking if others do. So why invent "Palestine has always existed" unless you really know?


----------



## chops_a_must (8 January 2009)

lucas said:


> OK - so you don't know. I'm asking if others do. So why invent "Palestine has always existed" unless you really know?




Huh???

You can't make land suddenly exist, you can only change the names. I certainly didn't invent that Palestine has always existed bud - to the Phillistines (in the original area), hence the name, so please don't accuse me of such things.

"The name and the borders of Palestine have varied throughout history, though Palestine has certain natural boundaries that justify its historical individuality.[5] Other terms that have been used to refer to all or part of this area include Arabistan, Canaan, Greater Israel, Greater Syria, the Holy Land, Iudaea Province, Israel, "Israel HaShlema", Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of Jerusalem, Land of Israel, Levant, Retenu (Ancient Egyptian), Southern Syria, and Syria Palestina."

Like I said, it became a generic term for the various kingdoms in the land mass.


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Not sure what your point is...
> 
> Palestine has always "existed". AFAIK it referred to what is now generally the Gaza Strip now, but is now just a generic term for what were many various kingdoms over time.
> 
> ...




Chops, I have just returned from a holiday in Malaysia where they show Al Jazeera news. Al Jazeera has actually expanded considerably over the years and have headquarters all around the world - their news reporters and readers are of nationalities from all over the world, America and Britain included. (From what I understand Al Arabiya has a far more biased view) The images and news reporting you get from the war is unlike anything we see here in the west. You really get a sense of how CNN/BBC 'water down' the news of this war. You get reports direct from hospitals in Gaza as well as imbedded journalists in parts of Gaza,pretty graphic stuff. The stuff aint made up. You get journalists reporting from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with responses from the govt there. 
Of course there will be those reading this thread who will argue the obvious  that it is Arab propoganda. But the horror of war should be shown as it is.


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

Another factor to consider is that Western journalists in general are not allowed into Gaza and hence dont have access to report the news that Al Jazeera have.


----------



## chops_a_must (8 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Of course there will be those reading this thread who will argue the obvious  that it is Arab propoganda. But the horror of war should be shown as it is.




I agree.

There are too many here living in a dream world, that don't seem to be aware of what the reality of war is - thinking it is a sanitised, precise display. I don't care for the propaganda. Watching a kid die speaks for itself. It is what it is.

If we had those images on our screens every night, I'd like to see our society's reaction. It is very much like how our news reports were, when it came to the WTC attacks, and Bali.


----------



## The Muffin Man (8 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> If my country was the continual target of the rockets fired from a bordering neighbour I would consider this an act of war from my neighbour.
> 
> I am not sure I understand why some on here are calling a response to an act of war as 'disproportionate.'
> 
> ...




I still don't get this arguement about how Israel is worse because it has killed more people. I keep hearing people add up Israeli casualties and compare them to Palestinian/Hamas casualties and use this figure to determine something? Or legitimise one side of the conflict but attack the other? Are we now punishing the side with greater firepower and ability to strike? Just because Hamas rockets are more inacurate should not mean that they are allowed to fire into Israeli territory indiscriminately and without response. If Israel considers these attacks akin to acts of war then they should respond by mobilising all of their available forces and use them to eliminate the threats. I don't see why any other response but this would be called for. The whole point of having one of the World's most advanced armies is to be able to deploy it when your country comes under attack. What else should be expected as far as a response goes if rockets are fired into their country? It's an act of war and should be treated as such.

Do people expect Israel to keep a running score card of deaths on each side and only strike Hamas targets after a Hamas rocket attack kills a few more Israeli citizens and levels up the totals? What a silly and unrealistic arguement, and it would kind of defeat the purpose of Israel having such strong military capabilities. I know, should they both resort to only firing rockets and mortars indiscriminately into each others territory and then it would be fair? Very very silly. I don't get why some are beating up on Israel because they have superior firepower as if it is something they should not be using in an *armed conflict*.


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

Hey! It's cool not to know everything, right?


----------



## noirua (8 January 2009)

America and Europe urge Israel to pull back but really hope they'll knock the living daylights out of them.  Thus, Obama and Europe will be able to concentrate on Afghanistan and their economies.
In other words. They want to be seen to care.


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> Are we now punishing the side with greater firepower and ability to strike?
> 
> Do people expect Israel to keep a running score card of deaths on each side and only strike Hamas targets after a Hamas rocket attack kills a few more Israeli citizens and levels up the totals? What a silly and unrealistic arguement, and it would kind of defeat the purpose of Israel having such strong military capabilities. I know, should they both resort to only firing rockets and mortars indiscriminately into each others territory and then it would be fair? Very very silly. I don't get why some are beating up on Israel because they have superior firepower as if it is something they should not be using in an *armed conflict*.




Quite the contrary, what the stats do show is that the side with the greater firepower is using its might to punish and brutalize the palestinian population indiscriminately. That is the purpose in showing these stats. 

I have no objections whatsoever to an army responding to threats to its people with equal or greater force, hence inflicting greater casualties. Like u say, casualty rates should not be a gauge of who is right or wrong. However, if that army with superior firepower and total weapon domination is using its strength to occupy, imprison, brutalize and torment a whole nation of people and then expect no retaliation, and when that brutalized people do retaliate to their unlawful occupation, and have the mightier country smash them into submission - thats what i have a problem with. 

Please understand that the stats only show who is mightier and provide a hint of who the oppressors are. In this case it is very clear.


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> I still don't get this arguement about how Israel is worse because it has killed more people. I keep hearing people add up Israeli casualties and compare them to Palestinian/Hamas casualties and use this figure to determine something? Or legitimise one side of the conflict but attack the other? Are we now punishing the side with greater firepower and ability to strike? Just because Hamas rockets are more inacurate should not mean that they are allowed to fire into Israeli territory indiscriminately and without response. If Israel considers these attacks akin to acts of war then they should respond by mobilising all of their available forces and use them to eliminate the threats. I don't see why any other response but this would be called for. The whole point of having one of the World's most advanced armies is to be able to deploy it when your country comes under attack. What else should be expected as far as a response goes if rockets are fired into their country? It's an act of war and should be treated as such.




Muffin Man, do you not see that there is something fundamentally wrong with the fact that for every 1 israeli kid that is killed, 10 palestinian children are killed at the hands of the israeli defence force? How do you reason that the stats dont really matter? Do you not see what kind of hatred this engenders in the population and that it is this brutality that is in fact fueling further future conflicts and actions of revenge? Isnt it obvious from these stats that one side is trying to beat the other into submission? Could it also be because the powerful side is beating the weaker into submission that perhaps the weaker is going to retaliate? Have you considered that the palestinians are not filled with blind hatred rather are fighting against their continued oppression and occupation? Fighting against living in their prison that is Gaza with little or no electricity, clean water, within a healthcare system which is operating under third world conditions due to an embargo? Do you not see that it is only natural for a people to fight back under these conditions especially when they are in such close proximity to their 1st world neighbours who live in conditions much like australia. Please dont respond that it is all their fault, because it is not!


----------



## nick2fish (8 January 2009)

rowie said:


> I have no objections whatsoever to an army responding to threats to its people with equal or greater force, hence inflicting greater casualties. Like u say, casualty rates should not be a gauge of who is right or wrong. However, if that army with superior firepower and total weapon domination is using its strength to occupy, imprison, brutalize and torment a whole nation of people and then expect no retaliation, and when that brutalized people do retaliate to their unlawful occupation, and have the mightier country smash them into submission - thats what i have a problem with.
> 
> Please understand that the stats only show who is mightier and provide a hint of who the oppressors are. In this case it is very clear.




This is what I don't like. Gross Exaggeration

Occupy ...Rubbish it is a search and destroy mission to quell Hamas attacks

Imprison...Members of Hamas yes Citizens of Gaza no

Brutalize... Yeah war is a bit like that which is why it is a last resort for most civilized countries Israel included

Torment... That is not Israels goal at all and they will be out of there as soon as the rocket attacks on them stop

The fact that civilians are dieing should be as much a concern for Hamas as it should be for Israel.

Remember it Hamas has the power to stop this as well !!!!!


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> Huh???
> 
> You can't make land suddenly exist, you can only change the names. I certainly didn't invent that Palestine has always existed bud




I don't know how many noggy days you have left, but do you want to make the best of them?

Come on...why not be as interested in learning as much as knowing? Hey, I was once as stupid as you too! And I'm still dumb. It's not so bad.

Why the desperate need to solve these idiots' problems? I mean it. Get a nice wife and **** the world and her if you have the ability. Take my word for it, that is much harder that any of this Middle East crap.


----------



## rowie (8 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> This is what I don't like. Gross Exaggeration
> 
> Occupy ...Rubbish it is a search and destroy mission to quell Hamas attacks
> 
> ...




Mate, if you are unaware that the palestinians are under occupation, then I really have no response for you. That is why they are commonly referred to as the 'Occupied Territories'. I am not talking about the latest war here but the conditions that palestinians have been living in for the past half a century or so. For your information, they have never left Gaza!!! Incursions, bombings, shootings, a complete and crippling embargo has been placed on Gazans for years (yes even medical supplies are denied entry). Theyre water and electricity supplies have been taken out many times over: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RECENT ATTACKS BUT WAS HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON GAZANS FOR DECADES! They have been brutalized, tormented and imprisoned make no mistake about that.


----------



## lucas (8 January 2009)

rowie, you never did grow up did you?

If you want to, revisit the previous posts.


----------



## fringedweller1 (9 January 2009)

Hi all, i am new to this forum  
 ...........Aussie stock forum I believe the name was! 
When I read the title of this thread I mistakenly believe someone might actually be talking about how the conflicts will affect oil prices and what fellow investors think. Hmmmmm.

Hey while I am here do as the locals do!
When did it become against morals to invade another country?
•	Was it when the Romans conquered all before them?
Maybe conquests became illegal after the exploits of the French, The Dutch, the Normans and the Egyptians.  Or hears a thought......
•	Was it when khan slaughtered thousands of simple people in his adventures?
•	Was it when the Spanish stopped seeking new worlds?
•	Was it when the Spanish finished squashing the Natives of South America?
•	Was it when the English finished spilling blood in the pacific, Africa and or North America?

Maybe Now that the “western so called civilised world” controls the economic and production power over the entire planet....... we decided this conquering is now Stupid, wrong, illegal, immoral and therefore must end... Bravo ….

Have we really forgotten for thousands upon thousands of years all the celebrated greats from Normandy, Asia, Europe, Arab nations and Africa  did conquered, slaughtered, raped, burned, behead enslave and pillage mostly everything in their path.

Without this happening I certainly wouldn’t be here..... As my Danish ancestors done a bit of conquering themselves, and I seriously would have hated history   lessons at school if it didn’t have the blood and guts....

So come on Israel get the hell in there and create some more history

I don’t think you Saudi’s should be spectators either, nor should the Iranians or the Egyptians you need to support you Arab brothers ....... come go for it!!!
You are all just creating history that’s all

But this leads me back to my opening statement, “oil Prices" 
Watch them soar... Go you good thing!!! I new you guy's could help me make money Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A million     Barrels that is HEheeeeeHee


----------



## lucas (9 January 2009)

Cool...spot on...what the **** are we talking about?

I did try to ask what others thought about the future. But everyone's an expert about the past.

Hot tip? It's gonna get worse. Much, much worse because Iran has those hot baby nuke factories.

Suggest play against the likelihood of them being blown up.


----------



## yobyn (9 January 2009)

hamas using boy as human shield


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=TejVJWSTTpY


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (9 January 2009)

chops_a_must said:


> I agree.
> 
> *There are too many here living in a dream world*, that don't seem to be aware of what the reality of war is - thinking it is a sanitised, precise display. *I don't care for the propaganda*. Watching a kid die speaks for itself. It is what it is.
> 
> If we had those images on our screens every night, I'd like to see our society's reaction. It is very much like how our news reports were, when it came to the WTC attacks, and Bali.




I'll put you out of your misery (to borrow a line from red, thanks red I like that line) here is a video of Hamas using common property (non-military) to launch missiles and anti aircraft guns from and to store weapons. Note the secondary explosions as the stash blows up.


----------



## yobyn (9 January 2009)

One more

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=S2G1TZKerTo


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (9 January 2009)

This is an interesting story:





> "Hamas is corrupt to the core"


----------



## nick2fish (9 January 2009)

Cheers Snake ...
"Whoever changes their religon...Kill him"

Puts into context exactly who we are dealing with.

I hope with all my heart that the innocents killed will be reborn into a better life..............


----------



## rowie (9 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> This is an interesting story:





Thats a real reliable source to prove your point snake - FOX News!!! It has to be true and unbiased!! pfffft....


----------



## rowie (9 January 2009)

lucas said:


> rowie, you never did grow up did you?
> 
> If you want to, revisit the previous posts.




I dont get what you are getting at.... In all honesty, Im not interested.


----------



## fringedweller1 (9 January 2009)

Well Well

I guess my first message missed some of you. "Oil prices" 

Well let’s do as you all seem to do here, that is talk about any thing other than share prices

As for killing the innocents, just go for it!!!!!
*
We did, I mean the "western world"*
T 
The Germans bombed London “*do you *think no innocents were killed or little boys"
The English and Australians bombed Berlin and other German cities “do you 
Think no innocents were killed or little boys"

The Japanese bombed pearl harbour “do you think no innocents were killed or little boys"
The Americans used a two bloody big ones (atomic) to bomb two Japanese cities “do you think no innocents were killed or little boys"
I guess we made it illegal or wrong after we done it.
Conquering is and occupying is what it is..... And their will always be winners and losers...
"_Have we really forgotten for thousands upon thousands of years all the celebrated greats from Normandy, Asia, Europe, Arab nations and Africa did conquered, slaughtered, raped, burned, behead enslave and pillage mostly everything in their path.

Without this happening I certainly wouldn’t be here..... As my Danish ancestors done a bit of conquering themselves, and I seriously would have hated history lessons at school if it didn’t have the blood and guts....

So come on Israel get the hell in there and create some more history

I don’t think you Saudi’s should be spectators either, nor should the Iranians or the Egyptians you need to support you Arab brothers ....... come go for it!!!
You are all just creating history that’s all"_

Just a thought, don t we occupy someone elses land here in Australia or was Free and vacant when the English and the Dutch found it,
**** I though those other natives just said here have it, use as you wish...LOL

Just another thought, do really think even though I occupy my little piece if my neighbour kept throwing rocks over my fence I would throw boulders back. And if that didn’t stop him wouldn’t i go over their and bash the crap out of him.

Then he would call in his mates to teach me a lesson or two...

It Sounds like some where else too doesnt it------ Israel and Gaza or Cronulla and or Punchbowl

*again this leads me back the oil price, *

This in recent months has bombed. However I had forecast the a slowly advancing price for 2009
But now as it has been raped, sieged and pillaged I can see it surging like a shot out of gun starting with a big bang. We should see it rocket back to above the pre bombing price. 

Watch them go ballistic... 
Go you good thing!!! I new you guy's could help me make money 

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A million Barrels that is


----------



## Uncle Barry (9 January 2009)

At least 700 Palestinians have died in the conflict and 3,000 have been wounded, 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBZS1LMKsjgE&refer=home

israel, keep going you will kill everybody and then you can expand the size of the state of isreal........ 
more land, equals more space to fill with jews, more jews together, will inturn require more land space, which country is next ?

WHILE
the World watches and does nothing !

sick, bloody sick World we live in !


----------



## gordon2007 (9 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Have you considered that the palestinians are not filled with blind hatred rather are fighting against their continued oppression and occupation?





That's just it...hamas is hateful. They have stated time and time again they will not have peace with israel and they want to rid the world of them. How can you argue that anyone who wants to rid the world of a people is not hateful?

Many people on here are talking about how hamas is only responding, but they also initiate a hell of a lot of crap. A fair argument could be said that they are oppressed because the the crap they start. 

Israel is not wholly innocent in these wars, but do you honestly believe that if hamas had the ability to do to israel what israel is doing to palastine, with hamas' stated goals, they wouldn't?

Maybe, just maybe if hamas stated they want peace and are willing to live side by side with israel, things could change.


----------



## lucas (9 January 2009)

gordon2007, I am in complete agreement, you just put it better than I can. How anyone can claim absolute right and wrong for either side escapes me.


----------



## wayneL (9 January 2009)

This was in this mornings Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5478395.ece



> From The Times
> January 9, 2009
> Red Cross accuses Israel of 'unacceptable' conduct in Gaza
> Martin Fletcher and Azmi Keshawi
> ...


----------



## Sean K (9 January 2009)

I think modern day people are a little desensitised to conflict, part of our long and bloodied history as an animal species.

The Red Cross staff upset at seeing a few emaciated people? A couple of dead bodies?


Hmm, perhaps I've seen too much..


----------



## wayneL (9 January 2009)

kennas said:


> I think modern day people are a little desensitised to conflict, part of our long and bloodied history as an animal species.
> 
> The Red Cross staff upset at seeing a few emaciated people? A couple of dead bodies?
> 
> ...





One would hope that we humans would become a bit more enlightened as we go along though. Alas, no.


----------



## Sean K (9 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> One would hope that we humans would become a bit more enlightened as we go along though. Alas, no.



I can't see that we've developed in any way over at least the past 3000 years in this regard.

Cripes, Dafur puts this little tit for tat into a bed time story and it's still going on. 

Oh, that's just Africa, no matter.

What I'm extremely concerned about is what might pop up in the next 20 years as China, India and Russia start seriously butting heads. Over and above this Arab Islam/West thingy.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (9 January 2009)

Hamas fighters using UN ambulances to move fighters.

I repeat UN ambulances to move fighters.


----------



## Sean K (9 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Hamas fighters using UN ambulances to move fighters.
> 
> I repeat UN ambulances to move fighters.



 Geeesh!

How can a conventional Army beat that?


----------



## Bushman (9 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Geeesh!
> 
> How can a conventional Army beat that?




They can't without inflicting heavy civilian casualties - that is the beauty of guerilla warfare for a group like Hamas. The conventional army might win the daily battle but they will always lose the war especially now with the modern media's blood lust. 

This is how under-manned, out-gunned militia forces have been bringing conventional armies to their knees since the Boer War. Off course, the Brits won that war but only after torching the local farms and creating historys' first concentration camps. In modern day terminology, these are called refugee camps.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (9 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> This was in this mornings Times:
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5478395.ece




Perhaps Wayne they should watch this video to see what was really happening with Hamas before the start of the Gaza offensive:



And it seems we have at least one Hamas sympathiser on these forums. that continually avoids the real material being presented.


----------



## Sean K (9 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> And it seems we have at least one Hamas sympathiser on these forums. that continually avoids the real material being presented.



Any chance that is Israeli propaganda?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (9 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Any chance that is Israeli propaganda?



What, the video?


----------



## disarray (9 January 2009)

seems like the narrator is an arab christian and he lays a large part of the blame on islam.

he makes a good point - the palestinians want people to be outraged about the deaths of their children, yet they train their children hate and kill. as the narrator pointed out, muslims are among the worlds greatest hyprocrites when it comes to killing, they kill their own while chanting "god is great", they train their children to kill and martyr themselves, they dance in the streets cheering the deaths on innocent civilians in 9/11, yet when they are attacked they scream in outrage at the injustice done to them.


----------



## lucas (9 January 2009)

I'm not supporting that horribleness in the video, obviously, and I'm really sceptical of all organised religions with their arbitrary rules etc.

But one thing I don't get about Islam is how extreme it is. I don't want to invite examples of Christian ghastliness past and present, but Islam does seem to be much more extreme. I don't mean this only in a bad way: I watched that doco about Cat Stevens recently and the wonderful work he was doing promoting peace and harmony in the world through...Islam. He seemed genuinely able to speak of the immense beauty and wonder of the religion, that blew him away when he first picked up the book. I can't and I wouldn't want to negate his or anyone else's experience, but how can it be that a book so ridden with anti-semitism and easily made dangerous sentiment (jihad etc. regardless of its true meaning) can also inspire people to the heights?

It's all so...extreme.


----------



## disarray (9 January 2009)

well look at the foundation of the religion. jesus is well documented as cruising around palestine healing the sick, preaching peace, tolerance, loving thy neighbour and suffering the little children to be brought unto him. mohammed on the other hand rampaged around the middle east killing jews, taking and raping slaves, pillaging trade caravans and having sex with underage girls.

by their works shall ye judge them. why is that so difficult to understand??


----------



## lucas (9 January 2009)

Point taken, but it's not all bad, in fact, for a great many converts it is mindbendingly powerful and good (African Americans convert in great numbers). What I am saying is how come if it's so bad it can also be so uplifting too? It's a sort of rhetorical question I guess.

Christianity seems to have reached a point of having made its impact without us having to actually be Christian (we all believe the basic message because it's in tune with common sense). C. has therefore all but become irrelevant, since humanists now believe much the same thing. Islam, on the other hand, has to be forced upon most people, unless they are a) political or b) able to respond to beautiful words (which I don't deny exist).

But, you're right, I probably shouldn't be so surprised.


----------



## disarray (9 January 2009)

it's also a bit of a trap as well, because unlike christianity, the punishment for leaving islam is death. religion of peace and tolerance for sure


----------



## rowie (9 January 2009)

disarray said:


> it's also a bit of a trap as well, because unlike christianity, the punishment for leaving islam is death. religion of peace and tolerance for sure




You are well and truly clueless.


----------



## rowie (9 January 2009)

disarray said:


> well look at the foundation of the religion. jesus is well documented as cruising around palestine healing the sick, preaching peace, tolerance, loving thy neighbour and suffering the little children to be brought unto him. mohammed on the other hand rampaged around the middle east killing jews, taking and raping slaves, pillaging trade caravans and having sex with underage girls.
> 
> by their works shall ye judge them. why is that so difficult to understand??




Are u for real? I recommend you read "No God but God" by Raja Ezlan. It will enlighten u and lift u out of your ignorance on this religion,


----------



## rowie (9 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Are u for real? I recommend you read "No God but God" by Raja Ezlan. It will enlighten u and lift u out of your ignorance on this religion,




Correction - author of the book is Reza Aslan. Its an easy ready and pretty balanced. Lots of work put into it and well referenced. Overall excellent book on Islamic history and development.


----------



## lucas (9 January 2009)

With a title like "No God But God", how could that book ever be a balanced work? Why have you chosen to put your critical faculties on permanent ice?


----------



## IFocus (9 January 2009)

rowie said:


> You are well and truly clueless.




Worked with a Pakistani engineer  and asked him about this, he said if he chose to leave Islam it would be extremely dangerous to return back to Pakistan.


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2009)

In today's Telegraph (understand that I am only posting what is in the headlines, without opinion);

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...aza-safe-house-full-off-evacuees-says-UN.html



> Israel bombed Gaza 'safe' house full off evacuees, says UN
> The United Nations has accused Israeli forces of evacuating 110 Palestinians into a house in Gaza which they then shelled 24 hours later.
> 
> By Damien McElroy in Jerusalem
> ...


----------



## rowie (10 January 2009)

lucas said:


> With a title like "No God But God", how could that book ever be a balanced work? Why have you chosen to put your critical faculties on permanent ice?




Lucas, dont judge a book by its title or cover. Read first and then judge. It is a moderate take on the religion. Points out both the positive and negative aspects of Islam and its growth including the fanatical aspect.  You will feel truly embarrased by your comment after reading it I assure you. No offence, but saying the book is not balanced based on what it is called is juvenile and downright brainless.


----------



## Sean K (10 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Are u for real? I recommend you read "No God but God" by Raja Ezlan. It will enlighten u and lift u out of your ignorance on this religion,



I've read the book and while very good I don't believe it is the view of most people in the Middle East who are more dogmatic and fundamental in their beliefs about the history of Islam and in interpreting the Koran in the modern word. Interesting to note that this person grew up in the States and completed all their education there. 

As for the title not being important, it actually is. It is the basis of Islam and an indication of it's inability to accept other cultures and people, like most other hardline cults. 


(On a Mod note, please stop playing the man and argue your point without resorting to personal abuse. Thanks.)


----------



## Whiskers (10 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> In today's Telegraph (understand that I am only posting what is in the headlines, without opinion);
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...aza-safe-house-full-off-evacuees-says-UN.html




Maybe a better balanced perspective.



> GAZA CITY (AFP) - - A defiant Israel pounded Gaza with bombs and shells on Friday, vowing to pursue its war on Hamas despite a truce order from the UN Security Council, amid warnings the territory was running out of food.
> 
> Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel would not bow to "outside influence" as its aircraft carried out more bombing and the army's tanks shelled several locations despite an announced three-hour "humanitarian" lull.
> 
> ...




So... putting my Conflict Resolution hat on, and bearing in mind that to resolve a conflict one has to apply rigid logic and common sense as enshrined in _Common Law _as is the basis of _International Law_... one has to again ask what do Hamas want in order to cease fire... again the only clue to an answer they have ever given is the annihilation of Israel.

The Palastine president Abbas is clearly interested in a cease fire but since Hamas have the guns and insist on continuing on shooting, one really has to wonder what the Palastine people want.

I wonder what answer a secret ballot in the region would give!


----------



## Whiskers (10 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> In today's Telegraph (understand that I am only posting what is in the headlines, without opinion);
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...aza-safe-house-full-off-evacuees-says-UN.html




Maybe a better balanced perspective.



> GAZA CITY (AFP) - - A defiant Israel pounded Gaza with bombs and shells on Friday, vowing to pursue its war on Hamas despite a truce order from the UN Security Council, amid warnings the territory was running out of food.
> 
> Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel would not bow to "outside influence" as its aircraft carried out more bombing and the army's tanks shelled several locations despite an announced three-hour "humanitarian" lull.
> 
> ...




So... putting my Conflict Resolution hat on, and bearing in mind that to resolve a conflict one has to apply rigid logic and common sense as enshrined in _Common Law _as is the basis of _International Law_... one has to again ask what do Hamas want in order to cease fire... again the only clue to an answer they have ever given is the annihilation of Israel.

The Palastine president Abbas is clearly interested in a cease fire but since Hamas have the guns and insist on continuing on shooting, one really has to wonder what the Palastine people want.

I wonder what answer a secret ballot in the region would give!

PS: If Hamas has the palastine peoples interest at heart, why don't they get out of the populated areas to fight Israels army... but I guess there's too much 'innocent civilian casualities propaganda' to be made by them keeping innocent civilians between them and Israeli soldiers.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

rowie said:


> No offence, but saying the book is not balanced based on what it is called is juvenile and downright brainless.




I'm not offended.

"Hi guys, I'm Reza Azlan, and I've just written this balanced look about a bunch of people whose credo is "Nobody is right except us" and guess what? It's the title of the book. You'll just love it! And I believe it too."

Or are you saying that he is simply an enthusiast? ("No Car But Holden"). I don't think so. Life is too short to bother with such extreme viewpoints.


----------



## Uncle Barry (10 January 2009)

At least *780 Palestinians have died *in the conflict and *3,200 have* *been wounded,* said Mu’awia Hassanein, chief of emergency medical services 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aeedxLuX.mMc&refer=home


----------



## Macquack (10 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> PS: If Hamas has the palastine peoples interest at heart, why don't they get out of the populated areas to fight Israels army... but I guess there's too much *'innocent civilian casualities propaganda' *to be made by them keeping innocent civilians between them and Israeli soldiers.




Whiskers, you talk about "conflict resolution" and attempt to take an educated approach to the current situation. However, the major concern at the moment is "civilian casualties", so dont dismiss the core issue by referring to it as "*innocent civilian casualities propaganda*"

Innocent civilian casualties *ARE NOT *"propaganda".


----------



## numbercruncher (10 January 2009)

If the Israelis have been ordered by their Western masters to halt bombing they should do as they are told.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

Since Hamas has officially rejected the UN ceasefire, they are officially complicit in those deaths and wounded figures.

Actually, Macquack, although I take the underlying point you are making; innocent civilian casualties can be propaganda (just read UB's comments) - repellent as that may be. You might say, "all's fair in love and war".


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> Whiskers, you talk about "conflict resolution" and attempt to take an educated approach to the current situation. However, the major concern at the moment is "civilian casualties", so dont dismiss the core issue by referring to it as "*innocent civilian casualities propaganda*"
> 
> Innocent civilian casualties *ARE NOT *"propaganda".



Whiskers is just putting his bias on display.

Conflict resolution hat? Pffffft!


----------



## Macquack (10 January 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> If the Israelis have been ordered by their Western masters to halt bombing they should do as they are told.



Hi numbercruncher, how is your leg going?

When is the USA going to stop pandering to Israel?

Late Thursday the UN Security Council voted overwhelmingly to call for an immmediate ceasefire in Gaza leading to a withdrawal of Israeli troops.
The 15-member council passed the agreement by 14-0 at the UN headquarters in New York following days of intense haggling by foreign ministers.

The United States - Israel's closest ally - abstained in the vote (*AGAIN*).


----------



## Sean K (10 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> Hi numbercruncher, how is your leg going?
> 
> When is the USA going to stop pandering to Israel?



Too many donations and votes tied up in that one..


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> When is the USA going to stop pandering to Israel?
> 
> Late Thursday the UN Security Council voted overwhelmingly to call for an immmediate ceasefire in Gaza leading to a withdrawal of Israeli troops.
> The 15-member council passed the agreement by 14-0 at the UN headquarters in New York following days of intense haggling by foreign ministers.
> ...




Perhaps they are the only country in the Council that believes - above and beyond the need to stop fighting - that a state has the right to defend itself.

I disagree with it, but perhaps America wants to be able to use that position to defend its own actions one day and reserves that right.


----------



## rowie (10 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I'm not offended.
> 
> "Hi guys, I'm Reza Azlan, and I've just written this balanced look about a bunch of people whose credo is "Nobody is right except us" and guess what? It's the title of the book. You'll just love it! And I believe it too."
> 
> Or are you saying that he is simply an enthusiast? ("No Car But Holden"). I don't think so. Life is too short to bother with such extreme viewpoints.




This is frustrating but here goes - no god but god is a saying that emphasizes Muhammads belief that God was a a single god that created the universe. Pre-Islam Arabia was made up of factions with pagan beliefs and rituals who believed and worshipped many gods. No God but God does not refer to a specific type of God that you are implying (Ie: A Muslim god). It refers to a singular god same as how the Jews and Christians believe. No god but god is a term to unite this new religion under a singular *monotheistic* religion as opposed to the polytheistic practices that were around in his time. It does not refer to a specific type of God, so I think your Holden analogy is incorrect. It emphasizes the monotheistic base of the religion, just like Judaism and Christianity. Respectfully, could you kindly explain your interpretation of it in that it means 'nobody is right except us'. You obviously have another take on it, I just want to know how you come to it. Thanks.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

Certainly.

If the credo "No God But God" is an attempt to ultimately include people of all faiths and beliefs it has failed and will continue to fail miserably. It will reduce the number of gods people should believe in (you say yourself that this was the intent - reduction to one). Its thrust, therefore, is towards exclusivity - as is the case with all major religions. Even if the intent was benign, you should be able to see the inherent danger of such a belief.

If the credo issues directly from "god" (whatever that means) then it shows that god has no understanding of human nature and its propensity for bigotry. Thus god is less than god and god, as such, does not therefore exist.

I'll stick to atheism thanks.

You have misunderstood my reference to the Holden car, but that's OK. It's hyperbole, but acceptable because the phantom writer just loves Holdens - he doesn't seriously want to take all other cars off the road.


----------



## rowie (10 January 2009)

kennas said:


> As for the title not being important, it actually is. It is the basis of Islam and an indication of it's inability to accept other cultures and people, like most other hardline cults.




Kenna, can you explain how No God but God refers to its inability to accept other cultures? It is in reference to a singular god as it was a monotheistic religion as opposed to the polytheistic practices of the time. It does not actually read "No God but a Muslim God". That is why there is so many references in the Quran to Judaism and Christianity - because they shared the same monotheistic beliefs, and Muhammad referenced the Jews and Christians as being people of the book that shared the same god as muslims. This is way before others warped islam for their own political/economical benefit. But the book clearly explains this- and you have read it, so how did you get from it that shows definitively its inability to accept other cultures? The book clearly indicates that the prophet was in agreement with people of the book. Did you not read that bit?


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

rowie said:


> It does not actually read "No God but a Muslim God". That is why there is so many references in the Quran to Judaism and Christianity - because they shared the same monotheistic beliefs, and Muhammad referenced the Jews and Christians as being people of the book that shared the same god as muslims.




How convenient. Pity if you are a happy pagan worshipping a nice female god, but then women's beliefs never did count for much did they?


----------



## rowie (10 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Certainly.
> 
> If the credo "No God But God" is an attempt to ultimately include people of all faiths and beliefs it has failed and will continue to fail miserably. It will reduce the number of gods people should believe in (you say yourself that this was the intent - reduction to one). Its thrust, therefore, is towards exclusivity - as is the case with all major religions. Even if the intent was benign, you should be able to see the inherent danger of such a belief.
> 
> ...




Good point. But then this is the underlying base of most of the major religions, so the exclusivity bit should apply not only to Islam but Christianity/Judaism as well. So the inability to accept other cultures is not a trait inherent in Islam alone then - based on monotheistic practices, other religions qualify as well.


----------



## rowie (10 January 2009)

lucas said:


> How convenient. Pity if you are a happy pagan worshipping a nice female god, but then women's beliefs never did count for much did they?




Actually they did. Muhammad changed many laws that oppressed women at the time. They were afforded equal rights in business and money and given senior positions in running of the community he set up. This was *unheard* of at the time in vast majority of the region. Pre-islam (and post) period was notorious for awful subjugation of women. Muhammad attempted (vainly) to change all that. It certainly had no lasting effect as the caliphates after him ensured status quo treatment.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

> So the inability to accept other cultures is not a trait inherent in Islam alone then - based on monotheistic practices, other religions qualify as well.




Quite correct. Which is why adherence to any of them is, in some small way, a step in the wrong direction and will ultimately cause hurt and pain in the world regardless of one's best intentions.

Muhammad's views on women are not the point. He wanted to rid the world of other beliefs. Enough said.


----------



## gordon2007 (10 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> So... putting my Conflict Resolution hat on,




Whiskers, I can appreciate that you've had courses in conflict resolution (and received competence), but mate...you're starting to sound a bit full of yourself.

I can argue that I'm a certified holden technician, but if I fail to fix your car correctly, am I still right just because I'm a certified technician?

To me, you are sounding as though your argument is that you're correct in what you say because you've had a "course" as apposed to an argument for one side or the other.


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> Whiskers, I can appreciate that you've had courses in conflict resolution (and received competence), but mate...you're starting to sound a bit full of yourself.
> 
> I can argue that I'm a certified holden technician, but if I fail to fix your car correctly, am I still right just because I'm a certified technician?
> 
> To me, you are sounding as though your argument is that you're correct in what you say because you've had a "course" as apposed to an argument for one side or the other.



I would also like to know why someone who claims to be a "conflict resoluter" is involved in so many conflicts on the forum. As far as an ability to put people off-side, whisker's inherent talent is second to none.


----------



## gordon2007 (10 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> I would also like to know why someone who claims to be a "conflict resoluter" is involved in so many conflicts on the forum. As far as an ability to put people off-side, whisker's inherent talent is second to none.




My post is\was not meant as an attack on whiskers. It is merelyto point out that I feel his arguments and rebuttals are getting a bit off course. 

Let's not turn this into an anti whiskers thread. I actually enjoy and concur with a lot of his posts.


----------



## Whiskers (10 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> Whiskers, you talk about "conflict resolution" and attempt to take an educated approach to the current situation. However, the major concern at the moment is "civilian casualties", so dont dismiss the core issue by referring to it as "*innocent civilian casualities propaganda*"





Hi McQuack, you misunderstand... I'm not dismissing the civilian casualties at all... clearly my sentence referred to the *intentions of Hamas *... ie to say Hamas is deliberately hiding among the civilian population to launch their rockets and fight Israel knowing full well that if Israel retaliates there is a high chance that the civilians will get wounded or killed too... which they use as propaganda in the press. 

I have said previously that any responsible parent would always resolve their conflits between themselves and always keep their children safe... ie well out of harms way both physically and emotionally. Hamas clearly are not thinking of the welfare of their children in the same sense that any normal reasonable parent would, because they are using them as human shields.



> Innocent civilian casualties *ARE NOT *"propaganda".




Clearly Hamas is using them as propaganda to sway people emotianally over the horror of their deaths to blame Israel... and having some success in playing on the empathy of some people.

But as I said before... *if Hamas had an ounce of concern for their civilians, women and children, and abided by the conventions of war, they would either evacuate them or get out of heavily populated areas to fight Israel, so their civilians stayed relatively safe.*

But the point is Hamas doesn't live by reasonable standards of behaviour, sort out their conflicts by reasonable standards of behaviour or fight WAR by reasonable standards of behaviour let alone the normal conventions of war.

I repeat, if Hamas men had the guts to fight their battles like civilised men instead of hiding behind their women and children as shields, then the civilian casualties wouldn't be a significant issue. 

As far as I'm aware no country has ever used their civilians as human shields as Hamas does. Sure there have been civilian casualties in the major wars, but for the most part both sides respected the civilian populations and evacuated them behind the lines. 

But thinking about civilian casualties... when the Japanese resorted to human rights atrocities and bombing civilian populations in WWII, where would we be today if the US didn't bomb a couple of complete cities of civilians?

While suggesting that in war it sometimes seems necessary to fight fire with fire when the other side doesn't play by the rules of war... but having said that, I clearly stated that I'm not convinced that if a 'secret ballot' was taken that the palastine people necessairly support Hamas's tactics and refusal to consider a cease fire... let alone fighting with them as human shields.


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> My post is\was not meant as an attack on whiskers. It is merelyto point out that I feel his arguments and rebuttals are getting a bit off course.
> 
> Let's not turn this into an anti whiskers thread. I actually enjoy and concur with a lot of his posts.



My question stands.

Particularly in light of the outstanding bias in the most recent post.

I'm not on hamas' side, but from a conflict resolution viewpoint, Whiskers stance is ludicrous in the extreme and ignores the history of guerrilla movements, including those of European "Christians".


----------



## Whiskers (10 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> My post is\was not meant as an attack on whiskers. It is merelyto point out that I feel his arguments and rebuttals are getting a bit off course.
> 
> Let's not turn this into an anti whiskers thread. I actually enjoy and concur with a lot of his posts.




I appreciate that gordon2007... a point I made earlier is that one needs to focus on what is internationally recognised right and wrong behaviour in the context of the protocols and process one needs to go through to resolve the conflict.

I may have elaborated a bit above about the context of civilian casualties in declared war. 

But if you'd like to mention the particular aspects that you are concerned with, I'll see if I can explain the logic (as opposed to impulsive emotional reactions like personality bashing) a bit better.

Again, I'm not trying to dismiss the civilian casualties one bit, but one has to be able to get past the emotional issues to engage in dialogue rather than debate to properly recognise the issues necessary to resolve conflicts.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

I know this might sound heretical, but I don't mind if people create a bit of conflict in these forums. I think I understand the pros and cons of others' responses to Whiskers' arguments, but just because he is a conflict resolver doesn't (in my mind) mean he has to toe some special line that we don't.

I'm really only interested in the arguments - sometimes the most loopy teach me something.


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I know this might sound heretical, but I don't mind if people create a bit of conflict in these forums. I think I understand the pros and cons of others' responses to Whiskers' arguments, but just because he is a conflict resolver doesn't (in my mind) mean he has to toe some special line that we don't.
> 
> I'm really only interested in the arguments - sometimes the most loopy teach me something.



Whiskers is entitled to his opinion and his biases, just like the rest of us, but preaching conflict resolution at the same time is amusing.... in an annoying way. But the worse thing is a pompous person with a bias blind spot- a refusal to accept that you may be biased.

My suggestion to him is to do some revision, he clearly missed something in the course.

A conflict resoluter must stand between the parties and walk a mile in each's moccasins, get the parties to understand each other and draw attention to transgression of both. This most clearly is not the case. The one sidedness is ridiculous. (as a conflict resoluter)


----------



## Whiskers (10 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> My question stands.




Well wayneL, first of all conflict per se is not the problem. *Conflict is often healthy*. Conflict per se is simply a difference of opinion. 

*The problem arises with the behaviour people choose to deal with conflict*.

We can count the number of people who you claim are "Ã³ff side" with me on the fingers of one hand... and they are basically the same few that not only conflict, but denegrate into insults and personality bashing with numerous people when they don't subscribe to their views.  

You and chops account for most of the conflict involving me that has degenerated into playing the man rather than adressing the issue. I certainly have not recripicated in that regard. Again conflict per se is a healthy way for people to engage in dialogue about different view points. Debate etc as you are demonstrating aims at winning the point or at least distrupting or denegrating good dialogue.

I have repeatedly invited you to specifiy any particular aspect of conflict resolution or the criteria that you have a problem with, but you have never mentioned any, just critise me. 

There are a number of personalities we use to describe people who attempt to block group functionality. They include the agressor, the topic jumper, the playboy, and the dominant.

I believe I mentioned a couple of times earlier on different issues that perceived provocation is no excuse for bad behaviour. It simply demonstrates that person is lacking in good manners and or any intention of wanting to resolve a conflict of opinion.

It seems that your main gripe is that some of us are trying to take an objective view of this problem, but a small number just cannot get out of their emotional inferiority complex or whatever.




> Originally Posted by wayneL: ... conflict resoluter must stand between the parties and walk a mile in each's moccasins...




There are five methods of conflict resolution... avoidance, accomodation, compromise, competition and problem solving. 

But, the best method for a permenant resolution of the conflict is the problem solving method... but if both party's don't come to the table in good faith and engage in dialogue as opposed to debate then the inevetiable result is competition.

A compromiser 'stands between the party's'... a problem solving conflict resoluter invites the party's to engage in 'dialogue'.

An accomodator or compromiser 'walks in the party's moccasins'... a problem solving conflict resoluter already understands the psychology of the way people 'walk', and purposely and deliberately does not walk in the footsteps of either party, but tries to get the party's to walk in different footsteps.

The rules for negotiating are:


Make a distinction between the people and the problem.
Concentrate on your and the other party's interests, not on defending your position.
Try to find options that satisfy both party's.
Bargain to onjective criteria.

Avoidance, accomodation and compromise have all been tried in the middle east in the past with no lasting resolution.

Currently by mutual agreement they are in competition mode and as mentioned above it just may be that a similar result to the end of WWII eventuates.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 January 2009)

I cannot understand how the Arab Kings and Princes in the region can sit on their collective arses and not lift a finger to support the Palestinians.

A funny mob.

gg


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

> Currently by mutual agreement they are in competition mode and as mentioned above it just may be that a similar result to the end of WWII eventuates.




What? Hamas and all the staunchly anti-Jewish Arab countries get thoroughly whipped by Israel and agree that they were hopelessly misled and are genuinely remorseful? I don't think so.

wayneL, BTW, who is John Waters? The actor? (Always thought of his work as having been well-executed and enjoyable, surely of some socially-redeeming value.)


----------



## mayk (10 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I cannot understand how the Arab Kings and Princes in the region can sit on their collective arses and not lift a finger to support the Palestinians.
> 
> A funny mob.
> 
> gg





Once bitten twice shy. Also they don't want attention to their brutal regimes. 

Why can't Israel take in all the people of Palestine in to the greater Israel, and end this two state rubbish? May be then the two can have a competition on producing the most number of babies to win the next election....


----------



## Whiskers (10 January 2009)

lucas said:


> What? Hamas and all the staunchly anti-Jewish Arab countries get thoroughly whipped by Israel and agree that they were hopelessly misled and are genuinely remorseful? I don't think so.




Don't you know how WWII was ended?

The alias bombed two whole cities including civilians to force the unconditional surrender of the Japanese military.

But I sincerely hope that sort of thing doesn't happen again.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

> Don't you know how WWII was ended?




It's true - you are a pompous twat.


----------



## Whiskers (10 January 2009)

lucas said:


> It's true - you are a pompous twat.




Oh dear. :

Just clearing up the context of my quote.

I'll be damned if I know how you related "agree that they were hopelessly misled and are genuinely remorseful" from what I said! 

As far as I know the Japanese army was neither.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

Most Japanese who are not young and uninformed, regret deeply how the Japanese military brought them to their knees. They don't, however, make a big show of it. (Incidentally, the kamakazis were quite unlike the suicide bombers and many seriously wanted to live.)

But I was referring mainly to the end of WWII in the the region we are discussing.


----------



## slim pickins (10 January 2009)

disarray said:


> well look at the foundation of the religion. jesus is well documented as cruising around palestine healing the sick, preaching peace, tolerance, loving thy neighbour and suffering the little children to be brought unto him. mohammed on the other hand rampaged around the middle east killing jews, taking and raping slaves, pillaging trade caravans and having sex with underage girls.
> 
> by their works shall ye judge them. why is that so difficult to understand??




lol..... did you get this from a rev. billy graham website or the KKK?

yeah, like european christians didnt have sex with underage girls. you know... when your polulations life expencancy is 30 you can be assured of underage sex. ok that was 1000 years ago. i think islam and christianity are not that different in thsi respect.

when elvis met pricilla she was 14 and he 24. they dated soon afterwards. hmmmmm jerry lee lewis (grown man) married his 14 year old cousin in alabama ?!?!?! both devoted christians 

jesus might have healed the sick but i think you will have to agree that christians have kileld more people than anyone in history. 

the pope sanctioned crusades and subsequent massacres, inqusitions, new world conquests, WW1 WW2, korean war, vietnam war. even recently, genocide committed in europe againt jews and 10 years ago in srebrenica, you had orthodox priests blessing the soldiers carrying out the srebranica genocide.

but the greatest victims of the christians are guess who?..... correct... other christians.

st bartholemews day massacre in paris... rivers of protestant blood were flowing, cromwells massacres of the irish catholics, then carpert bombing of germany killing millions of christians. right after the germans tried to wipe out poland as a nation who also happen to be the same religion as the germans.

so your stories of christianity and peace dont hold much water... yes in the last 50 years.... but only in USA and western europe.

you keep trying to promote your religion in this thread which is about a fight for land and democracy.


----------



## mayk (10 January 2009)

Off topic: 

Well as some people have definite interest in the consequences of WWII. Isn't it time that the nations of Germany and Japan again allowed a free reign? Are they still a threat? By free reign I mean militarily, not economically. Is it still a taboo?


----------



## rowie (10 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Quite correct. Which is why adherence to any of them is, in some small way, a step in the wrong direction and will ultimately cause hurt and pain in the world regardless of one's best intentions.
> 
> Muhammad's views on women are not the point. He wanted to rid the world of other beliefs. Enough said.




Yes, I see what you are saying and I agree mostly. But I think its only in the wrong direction if you start preaching that one religion is better than the other and one is right while the other is wrong. Conflict inevitably arises from this view or mindset. We have to be able to realise that the core at all religions is to teach or guide humans to lead a principled way of life. Some people require religion as a guide in their lives. If you are principled and hold high morals and do no harm to others or yourself then to hell with religion I say. I think the prophets in the past had this message alone in mind. However most were misinterpreted by established religious bodies that came after and used for self serving purposes and hence you have a world full of conflict then and now. The message and the messenger were not at fault, the people that came after with their self serving goals were.


----------



## tigerboi (10 January 2009)

ill stand corrected on this but i dont think the constitutions of germany/japan allow any decent sized armies...only for self defence i believe


----------



## rowie (10 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> lol..... did you get this from a rev. billy graham website or the KKK?
> 
> yeah, like european christians didnt have sex with underage girls. you know... when your polulations life expencancy is 30 you can be assured of underage sex. ok that was 1000 years ago. i think islam and christianity are not that different in thsi respect.
> 
> ...




Slim, as I have said in previous posts, disarray has a seriously flawed view on religious history. He is going to come right back at you to try and justify his narrow viewpoint.


----------



## Julia (10 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> There are five methods of conflict resolution... avoidance, accomodation, compromise, competition and problem solving.
> 
> But, the best method for a permenant resolution of the conflict is the problem solving method... but if both party's don't come to the table in good faith and engage in dialogue as opposed to debate then the inevetiable result is competition.
> 
> ...



I expect a difficulty in the situation being discussed is finding a mediator who is genuinely objective.   Any nominations?   I'd think most people (certainly soon to be Secretary of State Hilary Clinton) will at least be perceived to hold bias by one or both sides.





> The rules for negotiating are:
> 
> 
> Make a distinction between the people and the problem.
> ...



Whiskers, I'm not sure that 'conflict resolution' as a tool  is a "one size fits all" sort of instrument.     I don't know the context of the conflict resolution training you've had, but I'd suggest a workplace model, e.g. wouldn't necessarily be the perfect for mediation between warring countries.


----------



## gordon2007 (10 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> I would also like to know why someone who claims to be a "conflict resoluter" is involved in so many conflicts on the forum. As far as an ability to put people off-side, whisker's inherent talent is second to none.




I can understand what Wayne is trying to say. Basically, to be a conflict resolution practictionar, to me one should have complete and total neutrality on a cause. Whiskers is not neutral. He's only posted pro israel and anti hamas statements. To which one can easily surmise that if you favour one group over the other, how can one be considered neautral?

There is a difference between being a negotiator and a conflict resolution fixer upper. 

Whiskers comes across as trying to negotiate a favourable outcome for israel instead of being a neutral resolution conflict fixer upper.


----------



## gordon2007 (10 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Maybe then the two can have a competition on producing the most number of babies to win the next election....



That's quite funny in a twisted good way.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Yes, I see what you are saying and I agree mostly. But I think its only in the wrong direction if you start preaching that one religion is better than the other and one is right while the other is wrong. Conflict inevitably arises from this view or mindset. We have to be able to realise that the core at all religions is to teach or guide humans to lead a principled way of life. Some people require religion as a guide in their lives. If you are principled and hold high morals and do no harm to others or yourself then to hell with religion I say. I think the prophets in the past had this message alone in mind. However most were misinterpreted by established religious bodies that came after and used for self serving purposes and hence you have a world full of conflict then and now. The message and the messenger were not at fault, the people that came after with their self serving goals were.




This is largely off topic so I don't think we should continue in any depth here. (A new thread if you like?) I respect your opinion, but personally I don't see the value in holding hands with another human being and agreeing about something neither of us can verify. It may be harsh, but religion is the art of choosing to agree about the indeterminate, and I can't see the logic in that.

High morals and principled behaviour? We are not witnessing much of either in Gaza at the moment. But if we could extract religion from the equation it could all be over a lot sooner. WWII was not a religious war, but it had an end. This war will never truly end precisely because religion is involved. That ought not to enjoin anyone to practice it.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Yes, I see what you are saying and I agree mostly. But I think its only in the wrong direction if you start preaching that one religion is better than the other and one is right while the other is wrong. Conflict inevitably arises from this view or mindset. We have to be able to realise that the core at all religions is to teach or guide humans to lead a principled way of life. Some people require religion as a guide in their lives. If you are principled and hold high morals and do no harm to others or yourself then to hell with religion I say. I think the prophets in the past had this message alone in mind. However most were misinterpreted by established religious bodies that came after and used for self serving purposes and hence you have a world full of conflict then and now. The message and the messenger were not at fault, the people that came after with their self serving goals were.




This is largely off topic so I don't think we should continue in any depth here. (A new thread if you like?) I respect your opinion, but personally I don't see the value in holding hands with another human being and agreeing about something neither of us can verify. It may be harsh, but religion is the art of choosing to agree about the indeterminate, and I can't see the logic in that.

High morals and principled behaviour? We are not witnessing much of either in Gaza at the moment. But if we could extract religion from the equation it could all be over a lot sooner. WWII was not a religious war, but it had an end. This war will never truly end precisely because religion is involved. That ought not to endear anyone to practise it.


----------



## disarray (10 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> yeah, like european christians didnt have sex with underage girls. etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah omg what about the christians???!!1?




hi, this isn't about christianity, this is about islam. you want to start a thread about christianity then go right ahead. so instead of bring up the usual "yeah but what about the christians" argument, how about refuting the points made about islam and mohammed? a novel idea i know.



> when elvis met pricilla she was 14 and he 24. they dated soon afterwards. hmmmmm jerry lee lewis (grown man) married his 14 year old cousin in alabama ?!?!?! both devoted christians




so what? last i looked neither of them spawned a religion with 1 billion adherents that is responsible for 12,561 terror attacks since 9/11. do try to be relevant.



> so your stories of christianity and peace dont hold much water... yes in the last 50 years.... but only in USA and western europe.




i never said the christians were peaceful, i said islam is violent. nice attempt at deflection though.



> you keep trying to promote your religion in this thread which is about a fight for land and democracy.




i'm an athiest, but keep those assumptions coming!! to whitewash the role of islam in this conflict completely misses a fundamental piece of the puzzle, and call me crazy, but when there is tons of media around with people yelling "allah ackbar" then i think maybe islam is relevant to the discussion.

look to you and rowie, i've made my points about the evils of islam perfectly clear, i have yet to see 1 argument from any of you refuting the charges that mohammed was a paedophile, a rapist, a mass murderer and general all round psychopath.

i'll post it again with links, you go right ahead and refute the charges, and if you can do it then you can win $50,000 US dollars!! how good is that?

The prophet Mohammed was a narcissist, a misogynist, a rapist, a murderer, a paedophile, a torturer, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a looter and a bunch of other nasty things

refute the points or build a bridge and get over it.

p.s. the points don't come from billy graham or the kkk, they come from arab ex-muslims. maybe they are racist??

for more reading i suggest jihadwatch.org, guaranteed 100% al taqiyyah free!


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2009)

*Whiskers,*

Seeing as you want to play the semantics game re conflict resolution, there is a difference between playing the man and playing the behaviour. I don't play the man, I play the behaviour, read the posts properly.

Look, even the ww2 allies who indulged in annihilations of whole cities, held out a compassionate and facilitating hand to their enemies post surrender. Exemplary behaviour, even if the means to the end wasn't (depending on opinion etc).

Palestine has never had that luxury from the Zionists, who continue to be oppressive. We can condemn the behaviour of Hamas etc, but at the same time, we must understand the motivations for it. Hamas is first and foremost a social movement, and second a guerrilla movement. We call them terrorists.

But if they are terrorists, then we must accept that the French/Dutch/Norwegian/etc resistance were also terrorists, as were the early Zionists (and can be argued still are).

Not understanding these points disqualifies your hypothesis in this thread as distasteful nonsense, duplicitous in fact, no matter how many terms & concepts learned by rote are regurgitated from some TAFE course. 

There is qualification, then there is experience. Your stance here exposes a dearth of the latter as a conflict resoluter.


----------



## disarray (10 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Actually they did. Muhammad changed many laws that oppressed women at the time. They were afforded equal rights in business and money and given senior positions in running of the community he set up. This was *unheard* of at the time in vast majority of the region. Pre-islam (and post) period was notorious for awful subjugation of women. Muhammad attempted (vainly) to change all that. It certainly had no lasting effect as the caliphates after him ensured status quo treatment.




wrong. please try again.

such passionate debate in this thread. what a great site


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

> Hamas is first and foremost a social movement, and second a guerrilla movement. We call them terrorists.
> 
> But if they are terrorists, then we must accept that the French/Dutch/Norwegian/etc resistance were also terrorists, as were the early Zionists (and can be argued still are).




I am happy to sit down and have tea with any resistance fighter from France Norway Holland etc. but I'll pass with Hamas. First and foremost they are religious bigots not social reformers.

Your other points make sense, it's just you can't bring yourself to seeing Hamas as equally dangerous as, if not worse than Zionists.


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I am happy to sit down and have tea with any resistance fighter from France Norway Holland etc. but I'll pass with Hamas. First and foremost they are religious bigots not social reformers.
> 
> Your other points make sense, it's just you can't bring yourself to seeing Hamas as equally dangerous (if not worse) than a Zionist.



No you're wrong. I'm under no illusion about Hamas. But I think that they probably would not exist if Israel had behaved differently.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

But you are trying to equate Hamas to WWII resistance fighters in order to advance your case against Israel. It doesn't seem a fair comparison simply because the Germans called resistance fighters terrorists and the Israelis call Hamas terrorists. Apples and oranges are both fruit, but they taste quite different. Israel is bad enough and easy enough to criticize without inventing faulty (IMO) moral equivalence arguments.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (10 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> jesus might have healed the sick but i think you will have to agree that christians have kileld more people than anyone in history.




Rubbish. 

Phillips and Axelrod in the _Encyclopedia of Wars_ shows that religion is involved in around 7% of conflicts out of 1763 surveyed cases. 50% of those religious conflicts involved Islam.

Further, the democide project shows that by far, secular states (particularly of the 20thC, where incidentally, religion was marginalised) are responsible for killing more people than any other ideology. 

Historically, somewhere in the order of 2% or so of deaths by mass atrocity have a religious basis.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> religion is involved in around 7% of conflicts out of 1763 surveyed cases.




Interesting. I'm not familiar with the work. But off the top of my head I would say it would depend on how you defined "involvement".

Can't you include WWI? Both sides with god on theirs?

WWII? Wasn't the Final Solution an attempt to eradicate Jewry? Had it been successful, it would also have practically eradicated an entire religion.


----------



## >Apocalypto< (10 January 2009)

Hamas are not dumb they know they can fire rockets into Israel and once the Israelis get fed up and strike back the whole world will back up the Palestinians like they have and are doing now. Personally I am sick and tired of hearing how bad Israel is. 

The whole thing is a massive mess, you can't deal with Hamas as they are dedicated to the destruction of Isreal. You have a right to defend yourself from attack but on the other hand I do feel sorry for the poor Palestinian people caught up in this. Then there is the point of these poor people voting in a group like Hamas. So what did they think would happen when it was one missile to many into Israel. 

On top of this it's the militants that started it people not Israel. 

What would be perfect is take all the Palestinian civilians out and like Isreal take out the rubbish with a hail of missals. Then bring them back and start building the place together.

all I can say, is it's sad.


----------



## >Apocalypto< (10 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> *Whiskers,*
> 
> Palestine has never had that luxury from the Zionists, who continue to be oppressive. We can condemn the behaviour of Hamas etc, but at the same time, we must understand the motivations for it. Hamas is first and foremost a social movement, and second a guerrilla movement. We call them terrorists.
> 
> But if they are terrorists, then we must accept that the French/Dutch/Norwegian/etc resistance were also terrorists, as were the early Zionists (and can be argued still are).




And don't forget the IRA!!!


----------



## >Apocalypto< (10 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> No you're wrong. I'm under no illusion about Hamas. But I think that they probably would not exist if Israel had behaved differently.




Apart from the point that the English and others dumped the Jews in that area.

What would you do is you were attacked from all sides after just being nearly exterminated.

I will tell you if I was a Jewish person after that I would not take S.H.I.T from any one that started up with me.


----------



## lucas (10 January 2009)

That site that disarray pointed us to (the anti-Muslim one):

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

It's full of much hatred for Islam but Ali Sina, whose site it is and whose mantra is "Welcome to Faith Freedom International, We are against hate, not faith..." has this to say about Barack Obama:



> The fact that Obama is a crook can be easily established by studying this man’s life, words and deeds. Most people did not do any research about him. Truth is not that difficult to find. Your argument is very much like Muslims saying, wait until we die and then we will know the truth. That is not rational. We can find the truth if we open our eyes. This man will be the worst president America has ever had. How can I be so sure? Because I made a lot of research into the life if this scumbag. The usurper will destroy America. If a president was picked by lottery, the chances are that that person would have been far better than (that) bum. Now you have my words in black and white on this site. I would not make such a claims if I was not 100% sure.




http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/01/10/cindy-dry-is-an-ex-muslim/#comments #17

He's not my cuppa tea either, but I sure wouldn't denigrate the man thus:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/obama/future.html

No wonder he finds it so easy to bag Mohammad. Everyone is a psychopath except Ali. Having said that, I'm no follower of anything Islam has to offer, except some of the poetry.

But can't we all get along?


----------



## slim pickins (10 January 2009)

disarray said:


> hi, this isn't about christianity, this is about islam.
> 
> so what? last i looked neither of them spawned a religion with 1 billion adherents that is responsible for 12,561 terror attacks since 9/11. do try to be relevant.
> 
> ...




well you compared violent islam to peaceful christianity. 

most german aircraft and tanks bombing other christians had crosses on them. heinrich himmler and other SS proudly wore their iron crosses whilst sending jews and others to the gas chambers. 

SS officers celebrated christmas mass in auschwitz. many invoked the name of jesus whilst committing terrible atocities. not that different from hamas. except hamas does not have the same capabilities to inflict harm.

i am not mohammads lawyer. i am not here to defend a man that died 1000 years ago. i wil note that he was never convicted of any of the charges you accuse him of. i would say mohammed was no worse then any medieval pope.

as for paedophelia... lol... look at the church today if you are so worried abot that kind of stuff.


----------



## slim pickins (10 January 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> Phillips and Axelrod in the _Encyclopedia of Wars_ shows that religion is involved in around 7% of conflicts out of 1763 surveyed cases. 50% of those religious conflicts involved Islam.
> 
> ...




it all depends on how you measure it. nice try though.

but hear this..... people baptised chritian have been responsible, directly or indirectly for more deaths on planet earth then any other group of people ever. their biggets victims.... other christians... before you continue to deny it... do your maths first and do a body count from year 1300 to now.

if you dont know history, just do the last 300 years. or even the last 100 years.

muslims dont even come close. they try... but dont come close.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (10 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> well you compared violent islam to peaceful christianity.
> 
> most german aircraft and tanks bombing other christians had crosses on them. heinrich himmler and other SS proudly wore their iron crosses whilst sending jews and others to the gas chambers.
> 
> ...



As an atheist I can at aleast recognise that *what a minority do* is not representative of the entire religion, just like all buddhists probably don't not eat meat. But on pedophelia I am sure there would be more non clergy pedophiles than clergy so let's not over dramatise.

Why not comment on the religion thread or start a new one. Let's get back to the thread topic.* Hamas attacks Israel.*


----------



## slim pickins (10 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Why not comment on the religion thread or start a new one. Let's get back to the thread topic.* Hamas attacks Israel.*




well id rather pick nits out of a monkeys back then discuss the finer points of theology, i just wanted to debunk somone promoting one violent religion over another violent religion.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (10 January 2009)

Enjoy the monkeys slim!

Well jimmy carter  - who I won't give capitals to his name - has said the following:


> Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy *a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas* inside the wall that encloses Gaza.



Source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702645.html


----------



## cuttlefish (11 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Let's get back to the thread topic.* Hamas attacks Israel.*





Actually the thread topic is "Israel in the Gaza Strip".


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Actually the thread topic is "Israel in the Gaza Strip".



No that's the thread title.


----------



## lucas (11 January 2009)

Well, I'll go out on a limb - what we are discussing in this thread is at bottom the Islamisation of the West and the rights and wrongs of Israel doing something about it.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 January 2009)

Here is a good article on what Israel did in peace and as an act of goodwill. 
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/394573_murdockonline03.html


----------



## slim pickins (11 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Well, I'll go out on a limb - what we are discussing in this thread is at bottom the Islamisation of the West and the rights and wrongs of Israel doing something about it.




i think you will find that israel has little to do with islamicasation of the west. 
that is a trend started by the abolition of racist immigration policies in the west. 

you will find that israel will be attacked by the arabs, whetehr they are islamic, christian, secular, atheist, or belong to the karbala sect.

anyone that feels they have had their land taken from them will hit back. and rightly so..

its just that i feel if you have lost fair and square and someone is offeirng you a decent piece of land as a concession when they dont really need to.... you shoudl take it


----------



## numbercruncher (11 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> anyone that feels they have had their land taken from them will hit back. and rightly so..





Christians and jews had their laand taken from them by Islamofascists starting 1000+ years ago - are you supporting all out war to reclaim their oil rich birth rights then ?


----------



## Sean K (11 January 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> Christians and jews had their laand taken from them by Islamofascists starting 1000+ years ago - are you supporting all out war to reclaim their oil rich birth rights then ?



Interesting historical discussion on who was there first, and who has right to the land.

I think before Israel was given Palestine; the Arabs, Romans, Ottomans, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Akkanians, and even Sumerians held it for most of the past 4000 years. The Canaanites/Israelites held it for a certain period too. Drawing back the clock to see who rightfully deserves this section of the world is practically impossible. Thus, the little dramas occurring now and then. I can't see a solution until humans start learning to share their backyard, religion is wiped from the region, or one side annihilates the other.


----------



## Macquack (11 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Here is a good article on what Israel did in peace and as an act of goodwill.
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/394573_murdockonline03.html



Hamas rockets blew away Gaza opportunity
DEROY MURDOCK

"...Now, watch us flourish. A Gazan MLK could have asked *J.P. Morgan Chase *to *help construct *the Middle East's *most modern financial system."*

That statement is a laugh.

This guy Murdock should stick to his syndicated column posturings and not embarrass himself with economic forecasts based on Ponzi schemes.


----------



## lucas (11 January 2009)

Out of interest here is a similar thread from the US arguing the pros and cons just like us.

Have we missed anything? Done better? More or less biased etc.?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1885

I go back to my original point. What hope for this mess if there is such diversity of opinion?


----------



## slim pickins (11 January 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> Christians and jews had their laand taken from them by Islamofascists starting 1000+ years ago - are you supporting all out war to reclaim their oil rich birth rights then ?




i dont really understand you. was it the christians or the jews that had their lans stolen? because when the christians conquered the "holy lands" they promptly massaced the jews livign there. especially in jerusalem.

when the muslims took it back, the jews didnt really care becasue they were all dead. and there were no jews in the holy lands until the muslims allowed them back in.

they all lived there together until the next time the crusaders conqured it and massacred everyone.

so you see when you say "christins and jews" had their land taken... you arent being really honest to us on this forum. this was never an alliance.

jews took it in 1948 and have been pretty fair in dealing with it. 20% of israel is arab of various religions. all living very happily together.

both islamic and christian fundamentalists would just love ww3 to be fought over this land. and would love israel to be wiped out so the messiah could come back. 

i just think they should live in peace and share the land


----------



## wayneL (11 January 2009)

What do Muslims think?

I suspect that views are as diverse as us here. but I had a long chat with an Egyptian chap in Londinium today.

He was firmly of the opinion that it was Hamas' fault for kicking it off, but was absolutely distraught over the Palastinian civilian casualties and thought Israel was going too far... but took great pains to point out that he had no inherent animosity towards Israel and that Egypt had made peace a long time ago.

Just one bloke, but pretty balanced I thought.


----------



## mayk (11 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> What do Muslims think?
> 
> I suspect that views are as diverse as us here. but I had a long chat with an Egyptian chap in Londinium today.
> 
> ...




Does it even matter.

FWIW, arab-league (corrupt-undemocratic-dictators also known as kings and princes) leaders put forth a peace plan, which require pre-1967 borders for the two states.


----------



## wayneL (11 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Does it even matter.




No, WGAF.

Back to my beer.


----------



## mayk (11 January 2009)

An interesting take. I don't know if he is a radical, conservative, realist or whatever. But has interesting views.


----------



## wayneL (11 January 2009)

mayk said:


> An interesting take. I don't know if he is a radical, conservative, realist or whatever. But has interesting views.






			
				mayk said:
			
		

> Does it even matter?


----------



## mayk (11 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> No, WGAF.
> 
> Back to my beer.




Can you name any action taken by Arab leaders? This enforces my view of WGAF. 

Iran on the other hand is tying really hard to get its Nuclear installations destroyed.


----------



## wayneL (11 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Can you name any action taken by Arab leaders? This enforces my view of WGAF.




Yes. But it resulted in having their @sses handed to them on a plate, courtesy of US weaponry and support. Discretion is the better part of valour, even in the Muslim world.

It's how the Palestinians find themselves in the position they are in. 

Read up a bit.


----------



## Uncle Barry (11 January 2009)

Since the Israeli offensive began on December 27, at least 825 people have been killed, including 235 children, 93 women and 12 paramedics, he said. 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24897913-23109,00.html

It doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong. 

israel is killing humans 
and now want to increase their efforts at killing even more people.  
And all the while the World sits back and does nothing to stop the jewish monster.

Mr Hitler would be very proud of the jewish attempt to wipe out another race of people !


----------



## mayk (11 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Yes. But it resulted in having their @sses handed to them on a plate, courtesy of US weaponry and support. Discretion is the better part of valour, even in the Muslim world.
> 
> It's how the Palestinians find themselves in the position they are in.
> 
> Read up a bit.




Palestinians are pawns in the game among, Israel, Arabs and Iran. Many also consider them as a buffer between Israel and Arab countries. This is the key political strategy adopted by Arabs after the 1967 blunder. Better them than us.

On a human level any compassionate human being, regardless of faith, will sympathize with the civilian causalities. Violence begets violence. As someone mentioned earlier "Fighting for peace is like Farking for chastity".

The only powerful authority to do anything about this issue is UN, on which Arab nations have no control. That is why EU has more say than all the Muslim nations combined. This was my prime reason for WGAF, what Muslims think.


----------



## wayneL (11 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Palestinians are pawns in the game among, Israel, Arabs and Iran. Many also consider them as a buffer between Israel and Arab countries. This is the key political strategy adopted by Arabs after the 1967 blunder. Better them than us.
> 
> On a human level any compassionate human being, regardless of faith, will sympathize with the civilian causalities. Violence begets violence. As someone mentioned earlier "Fighting for peace is like Farking for chastity".
> 
> The only powerful authority to do anything about this issue is UN, on which Arab nations have no control over. That is why EU has more say than all the Muslim nations combined. This was my prime reason for WGAF, what Muslims think.




So WGAF what you think?


----------



## Sean K (11 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> 20% of israel is arab of various religions. all living very happily together.



Arabs living happily together? 

Are they all Shiites, or Sunni? 

All living happily together. 

Happily.

Together.

OK.


----------



## mayk (11 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> So WGAF what you think?




Sad, but true :.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (11 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> it all depends on how you measure it. nice try though.
> 
> but hear this..... people baptised chritian have been responsible, directly or indirectly for more deaths on planet earth then any other group of people ever. their biggets victims.... other christians... before you continue to deny it... do your maths first and do a body count from year 1300 to now.
> 
> ...




I draw from the best research available from scholars who study the topic and pointed to two of those resources. You, on the other hand have offered nothing but assertion. 

Oh, and the body count for the last 100 years belongs indisputably to secular governments.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM


----------



## Whiskers (11 January 2009)

Julia said:


> I expect a difficulty in the situation being discussed is finding a mediator who is genuinely objective.   Any nominations?   I'd think most people (certainly soon to be Secretary of State Hilary Clinton) will at least be perceived to hold bias by one or both sides.




I agree, the chances of getting a jointly acceptable facilitator to facilitate the Problem Solving method to get the best long term outcome for both party's is a bit remote.

I think for the most part the US, France and others have tried to be the mediator and continue to try the Compromise approach at least in the first instance.



> Whiskers, I'm not sure that 'conflict resolution' as a tool  is a "one size fits all" sort of instrument.     I don't know the context of the conflict resolution training you've had, but I'd suggest a workplace model, e.g. wouldn't necessarily be the perfect for mediation between warring countries.




Yeah, you’re right there. A workplace model involves a hierarchy of responsibility and authority. Similarly a Family (Law) model would not be best because that involves a lot of regulatory guide lines and laws that largely determine the outcome even in mediation and especially in the final adjudication.

Since this is a conflict involving countries the law is rather secondary as the law can be rewritten by these party’s upon resolution of the problem. For me the aim of the international community aught to be focused on international acceptable behaviour at the personal (societal) level in the short term to facilitate an environment to generate some goodwill and trust.

What I’ve been proposing is The Problem Solving method, what I and my tutors believe is a process that has the potential to give the best possible outcome for both party’s.  It’s essentially three main methods/processes that the facilitator judges best suited at any given time;

A Planning Process which starts off with the Vision, (establishing practical vision/goals), Obstacles, Strategic Directions and Action Plans. 
A Workshop Method.  It’s segments include Setting the Context, Brainstorming, maybe smaller group discussion for larger groups, a Discerning the Consensus and Reflective segments.
A Focused Discussion Method, that involves four main segments, an Objective, Reflective, Interpretive and Decisional segment.

The role of the Facilitator is largely to propose the steps to work out the issues, confirm them and help put them into application. The participants put forward all the issues and suggestions. The facilitator  basically addresses the personality issues such as shy quiet people and loud aggressive types to keep a balanced focused dialogue going and basically keep the process originally agreed upon on track including any adjustments for new issues that may come up.

'Mediation' is probably the most common approach to conflict resolution  in our society, pretty much an offshoot of the foundation of our adversarial justice system and typically involves Compromise, Conciliation and or Adjudication, consequently it’s often difficult for people to get their heads fully around the Problem Solving Method.  

The diagram sets out the basics of the different methods. Very briefly; 

Avoidance -  is used by people who lack the willingness to face the issues and reduces their ability to affect outcomes, 
Accommodation -  involves sacrificing your needs to appease the other party,
Compromise - basically is splitting the difference, only partial solutions,
Competition - is winner takes all. Useful if someone is trying to take unfair advantage but reduces chances of future cooperation.
Problem Solving - requires good quality dialogue to generate creative ideas to meet the concerns and needs of both party’s, a true win- win solution.

The other essential aspect of  the Problem Solving approach is dialogue. It simply cannot work if debate is allowed. Some comparrisons:

In Dialogue finding common ground is the goal.
In Debate winning is the goal.
Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one’s beliefs
Debate calls for investing wholeheartedly in one’s beliefs.
Dialogue searches for basic agreement.
Debate searches for glaring differences.

So that’s the idealist theory, but as I mentioned earlier it may just be that with both Israel and Hamas claiming they are close to victory and neither accepting the UN ceasefire request, that the Competition mode may decide the issue.

I think Israel would entertain dialogue again if Hamas would just stop firing all those rockets indiscriminately into Israel. For me that behaviour wasn’t achieving anything positive for the palastines, just inflaming Israel more. I’d like to see if the Palastine people agree with Abass in considering a ceasefire and talks or endorse Hamas’s tactics and totally rule out a ceasefire and talks. 

As I say, my starting point is aiming high for the best possible outcome and it may well be that a lesser quality process may have to surfice if they ever come to the discussion table again. What do you think it would take for both party’s to come to the discussion table again?

Or should we be entertaining the notion of a third and fourth party's, some independant representation of the average Palastine and Israeli people, what  we call community input or consultitive councils, to get a true Problem Solving method?


----------



## Whiskers (11 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> *Whiskers,*
> 
> Seeing as you want to play the semantics game re conflict resolution, there is a difference between playing the man and playing the behaviour. I don't play the man, I play the behaviour, read the posts properly.




Yes,semantics (the study of meaning in communication) is essentially important in conflict resolution. The meaning of any communication is that of and or intended by the conveyor, not the perception of the reciever.



> Palestine has never had that luxury from the Zionists...




Apart from this comment being expressed part in nationality and part in racial/religious connotations, which is inconsistant and displaying a hypocritical judgement... the following pretty much puts the 'judgemental' status of the history of Israel into context. 



>Apocalypto< said:


> Apart from the point that the English and others dumped the Jews in that area.
> 
> What would you do is you were attacked from all sides after just being nearly exterminated.
> 
> I will tell you if I was a Jewish person after that I would not take S.H.I.T from any one that started up with me.




Had it not been for the NAZI movement it's quite plausable that we would not be having this arguement about who threw the first stone and who belongs where, let alone the level of conflict that is currently in the middle east. Ceretainly not the Jewish peoples fault that the Nazis essentially started this train of events.

Also, the other aspect of your complaint against Israel is their so called disproportionate reaction.

Not my words, but quite applicable from post 534.


> Israel has had it with these explosions and casualties. It is defending itself appropriately, despite complaints that Israel's response is not proportional. *If proportionality is key*, *may Israel shoot 5,422 missiles and mortars indiscriminately into Gaza's residential neighborhoods*?
> http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/394573_murdockonline03.html




Of course, the other point is these two parties or at least Hamas has for all intention purposes declared war. What has proportional got to do with anything. The aim of war is to win as quickly as possibly.



> ...no matter how many terms & concepts learned by rote are regurgitated from some TAFE course.




Judgemental statements based on false presumptions is the quickest way to... let's say jovially, shoot yourself in the foot. :

Since you keep harking back to your perceived superior judgement about my judgement/expertise in this field, firstly it wasn't "some TAFE course"... it was provided by an international company that specialises in professional training in organisational behaviour management, and secondly it wasn't open to any applicant. One was selected to be involved in the training.



> There is qualification, then there is experience. Your stance here exposes a dearth of the latter as a conflict resoluter.




Again, you don't know what you don't know, you only think you know what you are wrongly presuming about me. So let’s recap that I started talking about the process of conflict resolution. Extracts from my original post.



Whiskers said:


> So in the final analysis I think Kennas earlier post about *what people stand for, what they are trying to achieve, is more relevant.*
> 
> So *from a conflict resolution sense* while Hamas and it's alias has the anialition of Israel as their objective the present situation will continue.
> 
> ...




With all due respect wayneL to use a term that you once used frequently, you and chops beat up a straw man argument, ie over generalised, personalised and misconstrued the context of my post to create something that you could more easily debunk to try to destroy the messenger as well as the message.

I was clearly talking in the third person, of a concept of conflict resolution. 

Now forgetting about the history, in the spirit of my initial post and strictly in terms of process, what do you think are the FIRST steps necessary to get the process of conflict resolution in the middle east going?


----------



## lucas (11 January 2009)

I am totally for conflict resolution talks. Dialogue - or all out war - IS the only answer; dialogue, not because it will necessarily produce anything concrete, but because it will put an end to the killing, allowing time (25 years +?) to be the ingredient that will eventually alter courses. War, because it flattens one side of the argument, rightly or wrongly.

In order for dialogue to begin, Israel must back off completely and Hamas must stop launching rockets. When and if that doesn't happen, on either side, forget it. Just watch the fireworks. You are not going to bring either side to the table.

Unfortunately, I have been in a three-corner pow-wow with mediators because of abusive neighbours, and although I was 100% innocent of any wrongdoing (even the mediator unofficially agreed) I had to concede something in order to reach the handshake finale. Need I mention that they returned to their abusive ways 2 weeks after the deal? I sold the house.

As I've said, I am for talks, but I don't think they will work any time soon. Those clever conflict resolution charts seem to be analyses of successful mediations, rather than ways to resolve immoveable positions.

I also agree with some chap in another forum who said doing business with Jews is hard - really hard - but once you shake on it, it's a done deal and you can expect payment and few if any problems. Shaking hands in business with parties from arabic lands is not so difficult, but you cannot expect payment, if ever; you will have enormous problems throughout the course of the contract, conditions will always be required to change, and you end up wishing you had never bothered.

It's a different way of looking at life.


----------



## wayneL (11 January 2009)

Whiskers,

We have no evidence of anything but a certificate course (AKA TAFE course or analogous to). As far as I'm concerned, you're sill a blow-hard. Anything less than diploma level and that bullet never went anywhere near my foot, but found it's mark.

Whatever; my main criticism is the astonishing one sidedness exposing the religious and racial bias you acuse me of.

BTW, Zionism is not exclusive to one particular religion or race, so you can't nail that old stand-by of the propagandist and attempted thought controller - racism - onto this little black duck. It just doesn't stick like it sticks to you by your very words and attitudes.

Your perception of the historical train of events is somewhat twisted and illogical. You really need to do some more reading on that subject before doing your own spin on that, LOL

I believe that's strike three,

Now, let's see if the _ad nauseaum_ waffling has any merit. Instead of if this and if that accompanied by theory copied straight out of a textbook, tell us how *you* would get both sets of terrorists to the table.

Answers sans overt displays of rote memorization please.


----------



## Julia (11 January 2009)

lucas said:


> In order for dialogue to begin, Israel must back off completely and Hamas must stop launching rockets. When and if that doesn't happen, on either side, forget it. Just watch the fireworks. You are not going to bring either side to the table.



Exactly.  And this is the point all your theorising is missing, Whiskers.
Mediation is a useful process *when both parties have an equal desire to seek a genuine solution.* So far we have no evidence of this on either side.




Whiskers said:


> Yes,semantics (the study of meaning in communication) is essentially important in conflict resolution. The meaning of any communication is that of and or intended by the conveyor, not the perception of the reciever.



  Not sure I'd entirely agree with this but it's a subject for another thread.




> Had it not been for the NAZI movement it's quite plausable that we would not be having this arguement about who threw the first stone and who belongs where, let alone the level of conflict that is currently in the middle east. Ceretainly not the Jewish peoples fault that the Nazis essentially started this train of events.



Sure as hell not the Palestinians' fault either.




wayneL said:


> Instead of if this and if that accompanied by theory copied straight out of a textbook, tell us how *you* would get both sets of terrorists to the table.



As already pointed out by Lucas.  This, Whiskers, is how it has to begin.
How would you  bring both parties to mediation?
Where would you find a facilitator who would be acceptable to both sides?


----------



## IFocus (11 January 2009)

For a totally unbiased opinion here is Piers Akerman Howard apologist
 in The Sunday Times today



> No one, let alone a parent raised in a Western culture, could imagine placing children directly in harm's way or encouraging impressionable infants to worship death, but that is what the thugs and murderers responsible for the slaughter in Gaza have been doing.




http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24896611-5005374,00.html


----------



## lucas (11 January 2009)

I forgot to tell you, Piers was that neighbour o' mine.

Only kidding. Just.


----------



## nick2fish (11 January 2009)

Ah Piers Akerman, oh how I have missed your desisive and candid veiwpiont. 
Long May You Write 

"It would be inhuman in the extreme not to feel sympathy for the children being used in this callous manner, but it would be unintelligent not to ask why those who are exploiting them are not being called to account"


----------



## Whiskers (11 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Whiskers,
> 
> We have no evidence of anything but a certificate course (AKA TAFE course or analogous to). As far as I'm concerned, you're sill a blow-hard. Anything less than diploma level and that bullet never went anywhere near my foot, but found it's mark.




Geesus... you sure are hung up on my qualifications. 

But it seems few are interested in examining a process that may resolve the middle east conflict or conflicts generally... they are stuck passing judjement and justifying positions. 

Now let's get this straight... I have repeatedly pointed out that I raised the issue of conflict resolution as a process for discussion. I did not mention whether or not I was qualified in that area, simply thought it would be nice to discuss some way of resolving the conflict.

But as per the straw man you keep manufacturing out of you incorrect presumptions about me, you then distort and ridicule my answers to your questions playing the man instead of the issue, to build on that straw man and accuse me of being, pompus - having or exhibiting self-importance, and a blow-hard - a loudly boastful person.

You have lampooned discussion about the issue... conflict resolution, by going after me for even discussing the matter without having qualifications that are satisfactory to you.

The bottom line is YOU insisted on me explaining my qualifications, then when I do to try to appease you, you then accuse me of being pompus and a blow-hard. 

*What is wrong with ordinary people just discussing ideas to resolve the conflict anyway! Why must we all have some sort of qualifications to even discuss the process!* 

Is discussing medicial issues tabo unless we have medical qualifications, financial issues tabo unless we have a finance degree... Bludy ridiculous!

'We', who is we? Didn't I just say catagorically you presumed wrongly... that it wasn't a TAFE Course.

Well.... let me try this again. think of it like nurses, teachers most professions have to get some pratcical experience before they get their licence... and extra in house extra curriculum training provided by numerous organisations for their staff to supplement life experience that is recognised in conjunction with tertiary qualifications especially when people tend to specialise in a particular field of their profession. 

Most of the material and concepts I have mentioned is in basic Organisational Behaviour and Human Resource Management courses at any university.

Since you are making such a fuss over qualifications, when there is no need to... I do have a Bachelor of Business Administration, majoring in accounting and law and including three subjects specific to Organisational Behaviour and Human Resouce Management on top of other more general managerial subjects. 

And since you've already branded me a pompous, blow - hard, you may as well also know that I have also been awarded membership of the Golden Key Honour society. Golden Key membership is awarded in recognition of outstanding scholastic, achievement and excellence, by invitation only and is limited to no more than the top 15%. 

No fluke either... it runs in the family... my daughter was similarly awarded. 



> Now, let's see if the _ad nauseaum_ waffling has any merit. Instead of if this and if that accompanied by theory copied straight out of a textbook, tell us how *you* would get both sets of terrorists to the table.




Well... since you've put me up on the pedestal as the Conflict Resolution Facilitator and if you'd studied what I've said, it's not the place of the facilitator to meddle in contriving to get people to the table.

The idea was to get people like you to change tact a bit and try to use your grey matter a bit creatively to consider options.

And for the record if the consensus is they are terrorists, I wouldn't. I'd let the specialists in law enforcement and or military capture or kill them if they put innocent lives at risk.


----------



## Macquack (11 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> And for the record if the consensus is they are terrorists, I wouldn't. I'd let the specialists in law enforcement and or military capture or *kill them *if they *put innocent lives at risk*.




Well, there would be no one at the table.

Whiskers, one point arises from your wafflings, that both parties may need to undertake a conflict resolution course (preferably, the same one you did).


----------



## lucas (11 January 2009)

Oh come on Whiskers - this is getting silly. Just make your points concisely as you can and accept that not everyone will agree with you. No-one thinks you aren't sincere in trying to help (not that any of us are going to be whisked off by helicopter to the brokering table), but it's pointless to go and on about a conflict resolution workout designed for normal life.

Do you seriously think that these types of considerations you mention are even in the back of the minds of foreign ministers/diplomats/you name it when these inflated egos meet to possibly broker a deal?

This isn't Doctor Phil. It doesn't work like that. For a start the mediators are the US, the French etc. who come with their own agendas.


----------



## Macquack (11 January 2009)

IFocus said:


> For a totally unbiased opinion here is Piers Akerman Howard apologist
> in The Sunday Times today
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24896611-5005374,00.html




"ISRAEL'S Operation Cast Lead is unfolding on the nightly news *like a soap opera*."-Piers Ackerman 

Piers Ackerman is an absolute tool.

How can anyone call this crisis a "soap opera". 

Innocent civilians have been killed on both sides.

Rugby League Footy Show host Paul (Fatty) Vautin got it right when he referred to Ackerman as a "fat heap of sh-t".


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> Rugby League Footy Show host Paul (Fatty) Vautin got it right when he referred to Ackerman as a "fat heap of sh-t".



the footy show is Crap with a capital C!
And the leader of Hamas? What does the vaughton think of him?


----------



## Whiskers (11 January 2009)

Julia said:


> Exactly.  And this is the point all your theorising is missing, Whiskers.
> Mediation is a useful process *when both parties have an equal desire to seek a genuine solution.* So far we have no evidence of this on either side.?




Well, firstly I like to think in terms of Conflict Resolution because it implies aiming for the process that can get the best outcome, ie Problem Solving.

Mediation geneally implies some sort of intervention, concilliation or adjudication by the mediator as opposed to more voluntary participation in problem solving.




> As already pointed out by Lucas.  This, Whiskers, is how it has to begin.
> How would you  bring both parties to mediation?
> Where would you find a facilitator who would be acceptable to both sides




No I didn't overlook it at all. You seem to have overlooked a proposition I put previously, ie to encourage some sort of grass roots intervention, community forums and consultitive committee in the running of the countries waring practices.

If you consider them all terrorists refer to last post to wayneL.

Re finding a professional facilitator of the type I'm referring too I have no doubt there are numerous in the corporate world that would be unbiased. An obvious option is for both sides to select a facilitator more familiar with their own culture and let them work together to facilitate the process.

A point people probably don't realise is that these professionals reputation is dependant on the quality of their work, ie if they have a track record of success they are respected and in demand. Whereas the conventional mediator is usually attached to some legal authority such as the UN or a country and have certain mandates from their governing authority, so their latitude is more limited and they are not nesessairly respected because of their affiliations.


*Macquack*, I've also repeatedly made a distinction between the average person in the street both Palastine and Israeli and the minority of more radical elements that could in reasonable behavioural terms, if not law, be considered terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

You seriously don't consider the average palastine or israeli a terrorist do you?


*lucas*, how do you suppose civilised society evolves? I'd suggest it's by the average person in the street getting more involved when their leaders get off the rails. By average people rebelling against and dismissing the leaders of their community who don't keep their constituencys interests foremost.

I'd suggest the process isn't so difficult. What's difficult is for people to find first base amid all the fear and propoganda being circulated. To that extent some sort of UN style peace keeping intervention could calm the environment in that respect... if the US were able to be persuaded.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> "It would be inhuman in the extreme not to feel sympathy for the children being used in this callous manner, but it would be unintelligent not to ask why those who are exploiting them *are not being called to account"*



Rather it seems there are many sympathisers of Hamas. They use children as shields to prolong their fight. Hang your heads in shame.


----------



## lucas (11 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> Well, firstly I like to think in terms of Conflict Resolution because...




How nice for you - you would be the only one at the table thinking that, though. It's about power brokering. Get it? Power!



Whiskers said:


> *lucas*, how do you suppose civilised society evolves? I'd suggest it's by the average person in the street getting more involved when their leaders get off the rails. By average people rebelling against and dismissing the leaders of their community who don't keep their constituencys interests foremost.
> 
> I'd suggest the process isn't so difficult. What's difficult is for people to find first base amid all the fear and propoganda being circulated. To that extent some sort of UN style peace keeping intervention could calm the environment in that respect... if the US were able to be persuaded.




I'd suggest you are off your face. Sorry, it's impossible to get through to you that this is war. If the world was ever lucky enough to have you as mediator between these warring beasts, and you started discussing conflict resolution with them, you would be thrown under a proverbial bus.

Try to work out why.


----------



## Uncle Barry (11 January 2009)

OK, all the pro israel tough guys, 
click on this link, 
look at ALL THE IMAGES
and then search your soul, if you have one.
As you should feel good deep inside.

Only Mr Hitler would be proud of israel and the way it is showing the World the type of people that control israel are.

http://portail.islamboutique.fr/gaza2008/


----------



## Macquack (11 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> the footy show is Crap with a capital C!
> And the leader of Hamas? What does the vaughton think of him?




He was too busy to go on the show.

But back to Ackerman, he is nothing more than a *Zionist propaganda peddler *that attempts to convince readers that the brutal occupier is actually the victim in the Israel/Palestine conflict.


----------



## GumbyLearner (11 January 2009)

Uncle Barry said:


> OK, all the pro israel tough guys,
> click on this link,
> look at ALL THE IMAGES
> and then search your soul, if you have one.
> ...




Has Saddam Hussein's Baath Party funded suicide bombers in the past?

I heard a few years ago that Saddam's regime was paying $25,000 to families of people who performed suicide bombings. 

Can anyone on ASF confirm or deny this?

Also I found an article from January 2005 about Hamas and Hezbollah rocket training in the Gaza Strip. 

http://www.defense-update.com/2005/01/hamas-hezbollah-unholy-alliance-one-of.html

Should this trend not be eliminated in time, Israel will face a situation, which could threaten their north from Hezbollah in Lebanon, their center from Hezbolla-Fatah cells in the West Bank and Hezbollah-Hamas from the Gaza Strip. No nation wishing to survive can tolerate such a mortal threat, without reacting drastically.


----------



## gordon2007 (11 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Has Saddam Hussein's Baath Party funded suicide bombers in the past?
> 
> I heard a few years ago that Saddam's regime was paying $25,000 to families of people who performed suicide bombings.
> 
> ...





Gumby, 
You're wasting your time trying to converse with UB. Firstly, he does not understand the concept of debate. Secondly, the facts he posts are mostly inaccurate and some are just plain made up. Thirdly, if you do engage him then he just assumes you're a hitler fanatic and or an israeli fanatic. 

regards,


----------



## Julia (11 January 2009)

IFocus said:


> For a totally unbiased opinion here is Piers Akerman Howard apologist
> in The Sunday Times today
> 
> 
> ...



Akerman is always firmly to the right.  Never have I read or heard him expressing any level of objectivity.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (11 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Has Saddam Hussein's Baath Party funded suicide bombers in the past?
> 
> I heard a few years ago that Saddam's regime was paying $25,000 to families of people who performed suicide bombings.
> 
> ...



Yes it was happening Gumby. Here is a link to an article back at that time:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html


----------



## Julia (11 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> Well, firstly I like to think in terms of Conflict Resolution because it implies aiming for the process that can get the best outcome, ie Problem Solving.



That nice sounding statement doesn't bring the parties to the negotiating table, as far as I can see.



> Mediation geneally implies some sort of intervention, concilliation or adjudication by the mediator as opposed to more voluntary participation in problem solving.



1.  With apologies to those who are getting  bored with this continuing discussion about the mediation process, that statement is the antithesis of the Dispute Resolution training I received from the Qld Justice Department.
This involved no intervention, conciliation or adjudication.  Any of these would have breached the whole concept of mediation as simply being the facilitation of understanding and ultimately agreement between the parties.
I won't further irritate everyone with a description of the process.

2. We still don't have any suggestions for inspiring the warring parties to seek a mediated solution.  Until that's possible you can put up all the dispute resolution models in the world, most of which will be completely inappropriate in a war situation, and you're completely wasting your time.


----------



## Whiskers (11 January 2009)

lucas said:


> How nice for you - you would be the only one at the table thinking that, though. It's about power brokering. Get it? Power!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No I wouldn't on all counts for the simple reason that working from the preferred model, I wouldn't be at the table until I was invited by the party's or their nominated intermederies... as distinct from the conventional meaditator who pushes in with their often vested interests.

Power brokerng!... well that's a large part of the problem solving process... finding creative ways to get all party's more of what they want.

Further, what makes you think the average Israeli or Palastine wants war? 

I'd happily walk among both communities if the small core of hard line extremists were removed. 

Apart from those few unfortunate children who have been indoctrinated to be human bombs, the information I have seen says that for the most part the younger generation in particular have friends and interact happily across cultural boundaries as much as the physical circumstances allow.


----------



## Uncle Barry (11 January 2009)

Dear Mr Gordon,
Whats wrong ?

Cannot you 'cop' the images on the site I listed or do you think the images of a little girls head are made-up or even, just one less for your isreal to think about?

Cannot answer so you attack me with the normal personal 'stuff' which seems a mark of your way....... 

Mr Gordon, I feel sorry for you when you cannot see pain or suffering in your fellow man kind or is it, a case of the non jews don't count in your way of things ? 

Matey, your one sick creature !
ps, Whisker could never work with your problem, could he ?


----------



## mayk (11 January 2009)

Whiskers said:


> Power brokerng!... well that's a large part of the problem solving process... finding creative ways to get all party's more of what they want.
> 
> Further, what makes you think the average Israeli or Palastine wants war?
> 
> I'd happily walk among both communities if the small core of hard line extremists were removed.




Have you ever been to these crisis ridden areas?


----------



## Whiskers (11 January 2009)

Julia said:


> that statement is the antithesis of the Dispute Resolution training I received from the Qld Justice Department.




Julia, I am aware of how the Justice Deptarment operates. With all due respect that comment was in answer to and the specific context of the middle east conflict where the mediators are typically the US France some other country or the UN. 

Also, in my earlier example of mediation the example's I mentioned included the Family (Law) process, which probably accounts for the vast majority of inter personel disputes and which usually involves some preliminary intervention by the party's legal representives to barter a deal, before the compulsory concilliation stage, trial and eventual adjudication.




> 2. We still don't have any suggestions for inspiring the warring parties to seek a mediated solution.  Until that's possible you can put up all the dispute resolution models in the world, most of which will be completely inappropriate in a war situation, and you're completely wasting your time.




Gee  wiz Julia, so what are you suggesting... that we all just throw in the towel and sit on the side lines and whinge about it all until they exhaust or kill everyone? 

Surely, encouraging people to use the less satisfactory but sometimes necessary 'Competition' approach to gang up if you like to persuade the US, (the only member to not support the previous resolution), to vote in the UN Security Council for both an enforcable cease fire and UN peace keeping force in the region is an approperiate first step solution in a war situation.


----------



## Whiskers (12 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Have you ever been to these crisis ridden areas?




No mayk, and I wouldn't go there just now. But I'd certainly like to visit in more stable times because some of my favourite food is middle eastern and I have seen how passionate and resourceful many of them are with their recipies. In fact my favourite eatery is run by lebanese, some with customary full rigalia.

I can't say I like all their practices such as the way they slaughter animals, but on the whole the average people have a lot to offer.


----------



## lucas (12 January 2009)

Uncle Barry said:


> Dear Mr Gordon,
> Whats wrong ?
> 
> Cannot you 'cop' the images on the site I listed or do you think the images of a little girls head are made-up or even, just one less for your isreal to think about?
> ...




All this Mr Hitler, Mr Gordon speak, and the rest of your perorations are intended to strike us all dumb with your withering insight, but is nothing but smug sermonising. I haven't heard an argument yet, unless it is "I can feel the pain and since you cannot you are damned to hell".

For the last time, you won't find the answer to who is wearing the blackest hat by looking at photos of one side's dead. This is a complex issue. Granted Israel's reaction is wildly disproportionate, but even that begs questions since a truly proportionate response might only be to fire rockets indiscriminately at Palestinian civilians for 8 years.

At some stage of the proceedings, Israel's paranoia must be acknowledged, while never being used as an excuse for the overkill. Paranoid people (countries?) don't generally respond well to criticism or pain and when they go on a rampage, you'd better watch out. Mix that with religious fanaticism and you have Gaza.

What irks most of us is that Israel is constantly being presented as a modern democracy to be looked up to and respected (i.e. with more perfect manners than Islamo-fascists) but acts like a bull in a china shop when it should continue to show restraint EVEN IN THE FACE OF PROVOCATION if the consequences of retaliation are too severe.

There, I didn't send you to Hades once but I think I made much the same point you are making. It is you who is attacking with "personal stuff" and it's boring.


----------



## slim pickins (12 January 2009)

lucas,

dont worry you wont be hearing an argument from UB and similar. you see if they could present an argument, and engage in rational, logical thougth, we would not have this problem in the middle east. 

it takes rationality, intelligence and some forward thinking to take advantage of opportunities presented to you. sadly, in absence of al three, we have the current sitution.

israel is pretty restrained. look at ti this way, the aboriginies had their land stolen by the whities as well, but if they lob a rocket into my house i think the response would be very unambiguous. 

so there is really no exuse for what hamas is doing. the theft of land is no reason to continue a war. especially if you are losing that war. 

all land is stolen, it belongs to everyone and noone. we are all just borrowing it until someone stronegr and smarter comes along. after all put it all into perspective people... its just a bit of land.... is it worth losing you life over it... after all arabs have soooo much land. israel is the size of sydney maybe smaller.


----------



## onebytwo (12 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> israel is pretty restrained. look at ti this way, the aboriginies had their land stolen by the whities as well, but if they lob a rocket into my house i think the response would be very unambiguous.



The aboriginal/"whities" situation is incomparable to that of the palestine/israel conflict. The sort of apologies, concessions, compensations and recognitions extended to the aboriginal population is nonexistent in Palestine/Israel. What we are seeing today in Israel/Palestine amounts to nothing short of apartheid.


slim pickins said:


> so there is really no exuse for what hamas is doing. the theft of land is no reason to continue a war. especially if you are losing that war.



Why is lobbing of rockets into your "house" an excuse for war but theft of land isn't?

So much for rational and intelligent thinking. Please don't let your obvious israeli slant impede on your fair judgement.


----------



## Uncle Barry (12 January 2009)

The Israeli offensive has killed 887 Palestinians and wounded at least 3,600, about half of them civilians, according to Gaza hospital officials. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6ccb.kbjOIE&refer=home

Mr Gordon and your pro isreal group must read that killing people is only a game to you, just fun............ sicko !

Don't you have a heart or soul that cares about anything except israel ?


----------



## Uncle Barry (12 January 2009)

ISRAELI soldiers and civilians working along the border fence with Syria have come under gunfire from inside Syrian territory. 
No one was wounded in the rare incident that came amid heightened alert in Israel along its northern border as the military offensive against the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip entered its third week, a senior military official told AFP

A person opened fire at a group of soldiers and civilians repairing the fence along the border with Syria," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. 

The Israeli military filed a complaint to the United Nations force monitoring the usually calm border between Israel and Syria, he said. 

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24900580-23109,00.html


The above is almost funny in a deeply sad way.
Its ok for israel to kill OVER 800 people and WOUND over 3000 people, 
but
dare fire one bullet at a couple of the good people from israel and they run to the UN crying about someone firing at them, where no one was even hurt.


----------



## lucas (12 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> israel is pretty restrained. look at ti this way, the aboriginies had their land stolen by the whities as well, but if they lob a rocket into my house i think the response would be very unambiguous.




Israel needs to restrain itself even further unless it wishes to sacrifice hundreds more of its citizens than would otherwise occur.

But I am not taking sides. Every rocket Hamas fires indirectly kills dozens of its own people. Every bomb Israel drops on a school - by accident or not - adds to its need to be more paranoid in the future.

The only observation I can make that damns Israel without a similar reason to damn Hamas - and it seems relevant - is that Israel must be taking advantage of the changing of the guard in the White House.


----------



## rowie (12 January 2009)

onebytwo said:


> The aboriginal/"whities" situation is incomparable to that of the palestine/israel conflict. The sort of apologies, concessions, compensations and recognitions extended to the aboriginal population is nonexistent in Palestine/Israel. What we are seeing today in Israel/Palestine amounts to nothing short of apartheid.
> 
> Why is lobbing of rockets into your "house" an excuse for war but theft of land isn't?
> 
> So much for rational and intelligent thinking. Please don't let your obvious israeli slant impede on your fair judgement.




Great response to slimpickins illogical argument onebytwo!!


----------



## slim pickins (12 January 2009)

onebytwo said:


> The aboriginal/"whities" situation is incomparable to that of the palestine/israel conflict. The sort of apologies, concessions, compensations and recognitions extended to the aboriginal population is nonexistent in Palestine/Israel. What we are seeing today in Israel/Palestine amounts to nothing short of apartheid.
> 
> Why is lobbing of rockets into your "house" an excuse for war but theft of land isn't?
> 
> So much for rational and intelligent thinking. Please don't let your obvious israeli slant impede on your fair judgement.




yeah... it is a little unfair to compare the two..... the aboriginals were barely counted as human, they werent in the census, they couldnt own land, they couldnt get a loan until 1963!!!!

the arabs in israel are treated like royalty is comaprison. they equal rigths, just as any israeli citizen, streeet signs are in arabic as well as hebrew, they are free to have childern, educate themselves in their own language, travel, and they dont even have to serve in the army if they dont want to. all this was denied to the aboriginals. 

in fact, arabs in israel have more rights then the jews sinse they dnt ahve to serve in the army. these are the arabs that decided not to fight against israel in 1948.... they now number over 1 million people. 

if you think that having your land stolen is a good excuse for starting a war....... OK..... go ahead.... let hamas continue this war. but dont come cryign on forums complainign abotu all the poeple that have died as aresult of your choice to go to war.


----------



## slim pickins (12 January 2009)

Uncle Barry said:


> ISRAELI soldiers and civilians working along the border fence with Syria have come under gunfire from inside Syrian territory.
> 
> The above is almost funny in a deeply sad way.
> Its ok for israel to kill OVER 800 people and WOUND over 3000 people,
> ...




no uncle barry. israel is complaining to the UN so the UN can prevent syria from escalating the situation. israel does not want to turn damascus into a pile of rubble, which is exactly what will happen if incidents like the one you mentioned escalate.


----------



## Sean K (12 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> yeah... it is a little unfair to compare the two..... the aboriginals were barely counted as human, they werent in the census, they couldnt own land, they couldnt get a loan until 1963!!!!




How times have changed. 



> the arabs in israel are treated like royalty is comaprison. they equal rigths, just as any israeli citizen, streeet signs are in arabic as well as hebrew, they are free to have childern, educate themselves in their own language, travel, and they dont even have to serve in the army if they dont want to.



 Royalty? Street signs? They can have kids? Travel even? And positive descrimination not to have to serve in the IDF, along with Orthodox Jews. It's a disgrace!!!!



> these are the arabs that decided not to fight against israel in 1948.... they now number over 1 million people.



Really?



> if you think that having your land stolen is a good excuse for starting a war....... OK..... go ahead....



This is a joke right? You try to take anything of mine and I am at war with you. Extrapolate that out to a country having land taken off her. 



> let hamas continue this war. but dont come cryign on forums complainign abotu all the poeple that have died as aresult of your choice to go to war



What?


----------



## slim pickins (12 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Royalty? Street signs? They can have kids? Travel even? And positive descrimination not to have to serve in the IDF, along with Orthodox Jews. It's a disgrace!!!!
> 
> Really?
> 
> This is a joke right? You try to take anything of mine and I am at war with you. Extrapolate that out to a country having land taken off her.




comparing to the aboriginies.. yes.. royalty. aboriginals could have kids but they would be taken from them sometimes. ever heard of an aboriginal with a passport before 1963? were they even citizens? could they vote?

arabs in israel have ot much better.... do you hear them complaining... they coudl alaways leave israel but no... they are very veyr happy there, and constitute 20% of israels populaiton.

kennas, if i take something form you and you attack me.... and i beat the living crap out of you.... again and again and again. you keep attackign me for the next 60 years, and you keep getting beaten every time. and then you realise... wow... in the last 60 years i could have done sooo much with my life. i could even have bought the thing you have taken from me 5 times over. but no.... you want that thing i have taken from you. and you try attacking me again.. and i beat you again. is that a course of action you would be happy to continue? if so..... i think you may be useful to the palestinian leadership


----------



## lucas (12 January 2009)

These right to land arguments are total furphies. They include unmaking Israel - as daft as disbanding Australia.

Without an "Israel has a right to exist" clause, all else fails. Without recognition of a Palestinian state, ditto.

Moving on instead of re-iterating the same tired old arguments, does anyone know of a comprehensive map of the region plus agreement that might one day be acceptable? I mean, assuming we get the arab nations to accept Israel's existence and assuming Israel is no longer shelled, what plan might really work?

Looking at the map it has always struck me that the miniscule Gaza Strip should be part of Israel and the Palestinians who live there have their own exodus - to a better place. Maybe an enlargement of the West Bank in exchange for an annexation of the Gaza Strip by Israel.

But I don't have a clue what I am talking about - does anyone? Not just pie in the sky stuff, please.


----------



## slim pickins (12 January 2009)

kennas said:


> This is a joke right? You try to take anything of mine and I am at war with you. Extrapolate that out to a country having land taken off her.




ok lets extrapolate,

serbia just had 15% of its territorry taken from her. no vote, no UN resolution, no questions asked. just taken. thank you very much for your land.. have a nice day.

serbia could have deiced to go to war with nato. it has 9 million people, it could inflict massive casulaties, maybe 100,000 dead nato soldiers. 

it has millions of loyal expats all over the world that could carry our terrorist attacks aganst nato interests. even the governor of illinois is a serb there is a lot a goevrnor could do... maybe even assainate the president who knows....

you knwo what serbia did... it did nothing.... you know why, because it is led by a democracy that puts its people first. doesnt lead them into wars that will destroy its people and ruin its country. 

i feel for the palestinian people and i wish they had better leader. all their suffering i blame on their corrupt incompetant leaders.


----------



## rowie (12 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> yeah... it is a little unfair to compare the two..... the aboriginals were barely counted as human, they werent in the census, they couldnt own land, they couldnt get a loan until 1963!!!!
> 
> the arabs in israel are treated like royalty is comaprison. they equal rigths, just as any israeli citizen, streeet signs are in arabic as well as hebrew, they are free to have childern, educate themselves in their own language, travel, and they dont even have to serve in the army if they dont want to. all this was denied to the aboriginals.
> 
> ...




Slim - If anyone came and took my house off me illegally, I would most certainly resist!!! I certainly wouldnt just bend over and cop it. Seriously, would you??? So you seriously do not think that people have the right to resist if something as big as your land is taken away from you?? Thats baffling!


----------



## Sean K (12 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> ok lets extrapolate,
> 
> serbia just had 15% of its territorry taken from her. no vote, no UN resolution, no questions asked. just taken. thank you very much for your land.. have a nice day.
> 
> ...



OK, so now you're on Serbia's team. Nice one. 

100K NATO soldiers to kill. Right.

Looking forward to the 'goevrnor' of Illinois to assassinate Obama.

Really looking STUPID right now!

Please send more ammunition.


----------



## slim pickins (12 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Slim - If anyone came and took my house off me illegally, I would most certainly resist!!! I certainly wouldnt just bend over and cop it. Seriously, would you??? So you seriously do not think that people have the right to resist if something as big as your land is taken away from you?? Thats baffling!




rowie,

ive had a lot of stuff taken form me. so have my parents. so have my grandparents. my grandparents have had such enormous wealth taken from them that it is difficult to comprehend. 

none of them fought againast such theft because it would have led to thier death or jail.

and despite losing so much....we all still worked hard and still have so much. much more then the unfortunate people of gaza. 

you see their efforts were concentrated on creating wealth and prosperity insted of vengance. sometimes we must accept that things are just lost. you have to make do with what you have left. once you have utilised what you have to the maximum degree then you can think about getting more. turn the gaza strip and west bank into a paradise on earth and then see if you can get any other land back. 

palestinian people have the right to resist!!! but they shoud not be surprised at the israeli response.


----------



## slim pickins (12 January 2009)

kennas said:


> OK, so now you're on Serbia's team. Nice one.
> 
> 100K NATO soldiers to kill. Right.
> 
> ...




well obviously its all hypothetical and pretty stupid yes.... almost as stupid as the palestinian goal of driving israel into the sea with their people begging for food and being shot up like fish in a barrell.


----------



## lucas (12 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> palestinian people have the right to resist!!! but they shoud not be surprised at the israeli response.




slim, I agree with parts of your argument. It doesn't absolve Israel, but there is a certain logic in arguing that way. By doing so, you are led to the conclusion that people do NOT always have the "right" to resist, and I think that is true.

Dopey analogy, but you should get my small point: if a big Grizzly Bear comes along and steals your family's picnic food, do you have the right to chuck yonnies at it until it lashes out and kills your wife and kids.

How responsible for their deaths are you? I think that is the point or similar that you are making, right?


----------



## mayk (12 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> well obviously its all hypothetical and pretty stupid yes.... almost as stupid as the palestinian goal of driving israel into the sea with their people begging for food and being shot up like fish in a barrell.




Nearly all conflicts on this earth are based on Land and resources. Religion is just used as a tool to motivate people to fight.


----------



## Sean K (12 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Religion is just used as a tool to motivate people to fight.



 

Enlightened.


----------



## slim pickins (12 January 2009)

lucas said:


> slim, I agree with parts of your argument. It doesn't absolve Israel, but there is a certain logic in arguing that way. By doing so, you are led to the conclusion that people do NOT always have the "right" to resist, and I think that is true.
> 
> Dopey analogy, but you should get my small point: if a big Grizzly Bear comes along and steals your family's picnic food, do you have the right to chuck yonnies at it until it lashes out and kills your wife and kids.
> 
> How responsible for their deaths are you? I think that is the point or similar that you are making, right?




you have a right to chuck yonnies.... if you hate your wife and kids 

responsibility in australian law comes from "forseeability". and its common sense. i can reasonably forsee that yonnies will result in their deaths. 

as i can forsee much more suffering for the palestinians under their yonnie chucking leaders.


----------



## slim pickins (12 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Nearly all conflicts on this earth are based on Land and resources. Religion is just used as a tool to motivate people to fight.




yeah... i think so. 

the irony in all this is that australia actually offered the jews a homeland near the kimberlys or somewhere and the jews refused it. 

russia also, but it didnt offer it... it just established it for them. built jewish schools, synagoues, filled libraries with jewish literature and gave them free tickets to move there. even staretd a daily newspaper in yiddish for them to read. many moved there initially but left for isarael in 1990.

its now full of russians and a few tatars. so its funny how some poeple will fight to the death for a patch of land and others just give patches of land to anyone that comes along.

its still called "jewish autonomous oblast" and its 30% larger then israel.


----------



## Uncle Barry (12 January 2009)

The UN, LoN's, offered a place called Kenya in Africa to the jews but they didn't want it,.


----------



## rowie (12 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> you have a right to chuck yonnies.... if you hate your wife and kids
> 
> responsibility in australian law comes from "forseeability". and its common sense. i can reasonably forsee that yonnies will result in their deaths.
> 
> as i can forsee much more suffering for the palestinians under their yonnie chucking leaders.




The logic to this is amazing - Someone illegally takes your property leaving you to live in slums. You object to this unlawful act by voicing your opinion. It is brought before the courts where the courts (the UN which cant really enforce anything) deem this illegal act a crime and rules that the property be returned. The property is not returned, the occupier has no intention to return it. You then declare that you will fight to get the property back yourself. The occupier (who is far stronger than you) refuses to compromise and any hint of resistance is smashed. 

So amidst this scenario, you can actually turn the tables completely around and say that the ones 'chucking the yonnies' are at fault because they had forseeability to see that their resistance will lead to the criminals to start with further crushing them into oblivion. So it is not the criminals fault but those who resist the criminal acts that are at fault because they know that resistance would lead to further punishment. The logic is quite amazing fellas. 

This kind of logic justifies further criminal acts in future dont you think? If we just roll over and accept criminal acts because they are carried out by 'crazy bears' (who mind you are intelligent humans and not crazy animals) then does that not pave the way for more powerful criminals to carry out these acts? So if you are powerful enough, you can get away with any crime? This is a mafia mindset. Resistance to all forms crimes is a must to ensure that these crimes are not perpetuated. The form of resistance is another topic altogether. But resistance is totally necessary all the time!


----------



## lucas (12 January 2009)

You are right, rowie. Life sucks. But life without your wife and kids sucks more. Or should.


----------



## rowie (12 January 2009)

lucas said:


> slim, I agree with parts of your argument. It doesn't absolve Israel, but there is a certain logic in arguing that way. By doing so, you are led to the conclusion that people do NOT always have the "right" to resist, and I think that is true.
> 
> Dopey analogy, but you should get my small point: if a big Grizzly Bear comes along and steals your family's picnic food, do you have the right to chuck yonnies at it until it lashes out and kills your wife and kids.
> 
> How responsible for their deaths are you? I think that is the point or similar that you are making, right?




Everyone has a right to resist any injustice or crime perpetuated on them. Whether you want to or not for self preservation purposes is another question altogether.


----------



## rowie (12 January 2009)

lucas said:


> You are right, rowie. Life sucks. But life without your wife and kids sucks more. Or should.




Life with your wife and kids in poverty with no hope of any future for your kids kids and you just turning around bending over and copping it sucks even more. May as well be dead living in complete humiliation and without freedom and without hopes to give your children a better life. That sucks big time in my mind.


----------



## lucas (12 January 2009)

That, rowie, is where we begin to engage in realities instead of rights.

I think life sucks because of Channel 10, the menopause, road taxes, (some) P-plate drivers, celebrity media attention, Darfur, the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church, Islam, the Middle East etc. etc. etc. Not much I can do about them.

Take up arms? Some of the things I mentioned could conceivably kill me too. Should you care? Why?


----------



## Uncle Barry (12 January 2009)

"Life with your wife and kids in poverty with no hope of any future for your kids kids and you just turning around bending over and copping it sucks even more. May as well be dead living in complete humiliation and without freedom and without hopes to give your children a better life"


And does anybody wonder why some people cover themselves with bombs, ANY MORE, when all hope is lost, then life is lost, is of no value.


----------



## Macquack (12 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> kennas, if i take something form you and you attack me.... and i beat the living crap out of you.... again and again and again. you keep attackign me for the *next 60 years*, and you keep getting beaten every time. and then you realise... wow... in the last 60 years i could have done sooo much with my life. *i could even have bought the thing you have taken from me 5 times over*. but no.... you want that thing i have taken from you. and you try attacking me again.. and i beat you again. is that a course of action you would be happy to continue? if so..... i think you may be useful to the palestinian leadership




Slim pickins, its called upholding a "principle".

One thing I would say is the "Palestinian bashers" lack empathy and the ability to place themselves in other peoples shoes.

Your statement includes a good point, in that the Palestinians have been hammered by Israel for over 60 years, so why would the slaughter of a thousand more stop Hamas from retaliating.

If Israel has the right to slaughter innocent civilians in the quest to protect their borders, then the Palestinians have the right to maintain the rage and continue the fight.


----------



## Happy (12 January 2009)

Looks that suspension of hostilities is in sight, at least that is what Israel says, so fingers crossed that Palestinian side is going to want that too.


----------



## lucas (12 January 2009)

Really? I heard that we are entering stage 3 and that Omert was saying "fight to the bitter end".

Ah! The media - the great informer...


----------



## lucky milo (12 January 2009)

Why when the Palestinians fight back with any means they have at their disposal they call it "Terrorism" but if an Israeli jet drops a bomb on a house and wipes out 10 kids that's called a "military operation"???? maybe its because the Americans own the media??? Israel does have a right to defend itself but they hardly have been sticking to military targets?


----------



## fringedweller1 (12 January 2009)

Uncle Barry said:


> At least 700 Palestinians have died in the conflict and 3,000 have been wounded,
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBZS1LMKsjgE&refer=home
> 
> ...




Lets end the problem once and for all NUKE em all !!!!
at least we have then done something..........

In all of nature the strongest survive, if lucky enough to have the biggest and best weapons then you will overcome most obstancles.

But just remember what goes around comes around

Look back in time, eygptians en-slaved the Jews, The jew's stole palestine, )hilter murdered jews, jews still opress muslims in gaza .........so whats next
Arabs wipe out jews.......

(just for those who are not aware MOSES led the JEWS into the valley of the palestines. who were living thier peacefully)

I am not on the Arabs side nor the Jewish side............both places are hell holes and basically if wasn't for the religion aspect would be useless...

all this talk is mute anyway as Isaral doesn't have big enough *go-nads* to really go for full out invasion.

It is quite simple----------Invade and the arab world wipes out jews 
I hoping they will do it, like i said in a previous post :

_Just another thought, do really think even though I occupy my little piece if my neighbour kept throwing rocks over my fence I would throw boulders back. And if that didn’t stop him wouldn’t i go over their and bash the crap out of him.

Then he would call in his mates to teach me a lesson or two...

It Sounds like somewhere else too doesnt it------ Israel and Gaza or Cronulla and or Punchbowl_


----------



## gordon2007 (12 January 2009)

lucky milo said:


> maybe its because the Americans own the media???





America hardly owns the media over there. Ever hear of al jazeera (spelling?). I've said this in other threads, america is guilty of a lot of things, but you cannot blame all of the worlds problems on america. 

I'm not saying america isn't involved in this conflict, clearly their they have a strong backing. But as far as the media, I don't see they have a monopoly on it in this case.


----------



## lucas (12 January 2009)

gordon2007, I increasingly tend towards your balanced viewpoints.

The world is awash in taking sides based on biased information (Hey! Me too! I watch the news - only I don't believe either side much).

fringedweller1 - yeah - I mean yeah - who hasn't thought like that? (Barring the anti-semitism...) but I notice you reference Uncle Barry.

You want THAT to inform you for the rest of your life? Please say no...


----------



## lucas (12 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Everyone has a right to resist any injustice or crime perpetuated on them. Whether you want to or not for self preservation purposes is another question altogether.




Cool, perhaps - like you have a right to any form of bad behaviour...suicide? I thought your hero said no, but why visit it on me - or your kids?


----------



## rowie (12 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Cool, perhaps - like you have a right to any form of bad behaviour...suicide? I thought your hero said no, but why visit it on me - or your kids?




Lucas, it is very simple, if someone does you wrong, you owe it to yourself to stand up for yourself. Perhaps your dad taught you to stand up for yourself in the school yard against a bully who may have been bigger than u. Same principle, why is this concept so hard for you to grasp? If there is more at stake, then obviously the stakes increase, like your life. I am not talking about disliking the media, religions etc. because in this instance you are fighting for your life and the future of your children. There is alot more at stake. Hope you understand this and dont come back with irrelevant topics such as suicide etc. It is about standing up for yourself and your principles, and sometimes the price is your life because the alternative to not standing up is worst than death itself.


----------



## lucas (12 January 2009)

you are a nice guy, but it is not simple.

Rid yourself of all religion (doesn't mean hate those still in need of help).

Be balanced - as I have tried to be (and failed obviously, but I try...)

And never - ever - ask for retribution.


----------



## rowie (12 January 2009)

lucas said:


> you are a nice guy, but it is not simple.
> 
> Rid yourself of all religion (doesn't mean hate those still in need of help).
> 
> ...




Well, i agree with all you have said here. For once we are in agreement!


----------



## lucas (13 January 2009)

...and are you glad to be as beautiful as the panda and the ant and to have stopped your human ridiculousness?

Welcome to atheism! We are not at all devoid of sunsets and beauty! In fact we watch them knowing we haven't killed anyone or want to.

Please be part of our loveliness!


----------



## mayk (13 January 2009)

lucas said:


> ...and are you glad to be as beautiful as the panda and the ant and to have stopped your human ridiculousness?
> 
> Welcome to atheism! We are not at all devoid of sunsets and beauty! In fact we watch them knowing we haven't killed anyone or want to.
> 
> Please be part of our loveliness!



It is pacifism not atheism.


----------



## lucas (13 January 2009)

..and the problem is?


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 January 2009)

lucas said:


> ...and are you glad to be as beautiful as the panda and the ant and to have stopped your human ridiculousness?
> 
> Welcome to atheism! We are not at all devoid of sunsets and beauty! In fact we watch them knowing we haven't killed anyone or want to.
> 
> Please be part of our loveliness!




Great post Lucas! I agree. 

It reminders of that lovely song Why cant we be friends?


----------



## mayk (13 January 2009)

lucas said:


> ..and the problem is?




You are implying that all atheists are peace loving, against war. Which is not the case. Remember those Romans? Those Godless Communist Marxists?

You must be a pacifist to be against war.


----------



## lucas (13 January 2009)

I dunno. Seriously, I don't know.

I know I don't want to assist people's very suspect beliefs if they include such things as you were born gay and we hate you. I mean total crap.

But I think atheism as a response to war? Yeah, I think there are assholes who believe that we can't say it and I say **** them.


----------



## GumbyLearner (13 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I dunno. Seriously, I don't know.
> 
> I know I don't want to assist people's very suspect beliefs if they include such things as you were born gay and we hate you. I mean total crap.
> 
> But I think atheism as a response to war? Yeah, I think there are assholes who believe that we can't say it and I say **** them.




Hey man I respect anyone's belief.

I refuse to respect bigotry and Im sure there are many on this blog who have been subject to all kinds of bigotry. Dont worry mate, from childhood I can seriously understand where your coming from. I agree they can go and take a long jump off a short pier!


----------



## onebytwo (13 January 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfFMZ7Y-s_c

If we can prove that Israel, not Hamas, broke the ceasefire agreed to in mid-June, then we can conclude that Israel is in violation of international law and should be held accountable. The above video is proof of this.

Now we can completely discount this spurious idea that Israel is justified in attacking Gaza. Israel is only interested in socially suffocating the Gazan people.


----------



## nick2fish (13 January 2009)

I don't know if you are at all right there.... you could look at that the attack on Hamas soldiers while engaged in tunnel building as a legitimate defensive response. And so it goes on..........


----------



## gordon2007 (13 January 2009)

Bugga, I thought we were actually going to go a whole day without a post on this thread.


----------



## rowie (13 January 2009)

Its nothing to do with aethism and all to do with pacifism. But seriously, just watching the news about gaza tonight makes me sick. What they are doing there is totally sick. To hell with all of u who try to justify it in anyway. Its downright wrong. They are using white phosphorous on a city - that just makes me sick and angry at what is going on. It is totally wrong and against any form of humanity. This madness has to stop.


----------



## Uncle Barry (13 January 2009)

The Israeli offensive in Gaza has *killed 919 Palestinians and left 4,400 **wounded,* according to Mu’awia Hassanein, chief of emergency medical services in Gaza. The UN Relief and Works Agency said at least a quarter 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFGsTZ7vA5IM&refer=home


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 January 2009)

Uncle Barry said:


> The Israeli offensive in Gaza has *killed 919 Palestinians and left 4,400 **wounded,* according to Mu’awia Hassanein, chief of emergency medical services in Gaza. The UN Relief and Works Agency said at least a quarter
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aFGsTZ7vA5IM&refer=home



Hamas uses women, children and non-military personel as human shields. They are commiting war crimes and refuse to accept peace with Israel or Judaism in the region. They have stated that they love death like the Israelis love life. Considering that this is the case i am baffled as to why the west fall for the sympathy propaganda which only strenthens Hamas and others like them. Property is used as the reason but it is not the only thing.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Hamas uses women, children and non-military personel as human shields.



 Can you show some evidence of this in the current confilict.  Are all women and children murdered by Israeli troops Hamas props?



> Considering that this is the case i am baffled as to why the west fall for the sympathy propaganda which only strenthens Hamas and others like them. Property is used as the reason but it is not the only thing.




Considering that Israeli attacks are killing hundreds of women and children (920 deaths, 4200 casualties according to UN reports)  I find it pretty easy to see why the propoganda you are pushing isn't being swallowed.  Plus of course that the last lot of serious propoganda used to justify mass murder in the middle east was the Iraq WMD story which turned out to be a crock of sh*te.

Meanwhile there have been 13 Israeli soldiers killed.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Considering that Israeli attacks are killing hundreds of women and children (920 deaths, 4200 casualties according to *UN reports*)  I find it pretty easy to see why the propoganda you are pushing isn't being swallowed.  *Plus of course that the last lot of serious propoganda used to justify mass murder in the middle east was the Iraq WMD story which turned out to be a crock of sh*te.*
> Meanwhile there have been 13 Israeli soldiers killed.



Your bias in red is clear and not to be considered resonable to debate with.


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

I don't know what pacifism has to do with a war in which neither side will stop fighting. The point I tried to make about atheism has been missed completely by some. Not that it was all that deep. Never mind.

I am starting to think that Obama will put a temporary stop to it - that is if he actually does become president and that birth certificate of his isn't his undoing...all very strange.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Your bias in red is clear and not to be considered resonable to debate with.




Because you are afraid of rational debate.  The "bias" you indicate was a statement of proven fact.  In the meantime you have made unsubstantiated allegations against Hamas in your prior post which I legitimately questioned and I also gave reliable evidence (unless you dispute UN figures) that at this point in time this is a one sided conflict.

But you are welcome and entitled in a free world to stick to your own myopic viewpoint and hide behind your unsubstantiated allegations.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> In the meantime you have made unsubstantiated allegations against Hamas in your prior post which I legitimately questioned and I also gave reliable evidence (unless you dispute UN figures) that at this point in time *this is a one sided conflict*.



You are very emotional tonight. 
Go back through the thread and there is plenty of linked info. It is also common knowledge. If it is a one sided conflict then who is fighting themselves?


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

It's not that I don't agree with those who point to Israel's heavyhanded approach. But how can anyone say this is a one-sided conflict (at this point in time??? What can that possibly mean?).

Being unable to see that both sides are part of the problem is the myopic view, and Snake is right.

If there were three rallies in town, pro Hamas and Palestine, pro Israel, and an anti-war protest that took no sides, I would think it unconscionable for any reasonable, educated person to add their weight to the first.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> You are very emotional tonight.



Well its an emotional issue, and a topic I've tried to avoid posting in.




> Go back through the thread and there is plenty of linked info. It is also _common knowledge_. If it is a one sided conflict then who is fighting themselves?




There was plenty of 'linked info' about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  And it was also 'common knowledge'  (what kind of a supporting argument is that?!?).  But in the end it turned out that it was all hyped up BS.  It aggravates me to be seeing the same 'logic' being used to justify this situation.

Innocent Palestinians are being killed in large numbers at the moment at the hands of israeli actions. That is a 100% fact.


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> There was plenty of 'linked info' about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  And it was also 'common knowledge'  (what kind of a supporting argument is that?!?).  But in the end it turned out that it was all hyped up BS.




There is far greater evidence to support the position that it was simply faulty intelligence. But then there is less to get fired up about...


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

lucas said:


> There is far greater evidence to support the position that it was simply faulty intelligence. But then there is less to get fired up about...




Regardless it was erroneous information and a lot of people died as a result of it, thus a healthy level of skepticism towards 'facts' that are 'common knowledge' is appropriate.


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

Erroneous information is just that. If you want guarantees about every aspect of life, choose another planet. The point is **** happens. You might have chosen not to act on the "erroneous" advice; Bush and Tony Blair did. Bush has plenty to answer for, but acting on advice which later turns out to be faulty is the way the cards fall from time to time. Get over it.


----------



## sinner (14 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Bush has plenty to answer for, but acting on advice which later turns out to be faulty is the way the cards fall from time to time. Get over it.




What a load of tripe.

Why should I trust Bush claims that he was acting on someone elses advice when it seems pretty blatant and obvious that his actions were largely of his own volition.


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

Then don't trust him. That's your entitlement in a democracy. But you show your bias when you don't include Blair in your sentence, too. He also agonised over the decision, but it's less difficult to be a sheep and hate Bush because you are in easy company. For the record, I think Bush's presidency mostly stank. But this is off-topic.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Erroneous information is just that. If you want guarantees about every aspect of life, choose another planet. The point is **** happens. You might have chosen not to act on the "erroneous" advice; Bush and Tony Blair did. Bush has plenty to answer for, but acting on advice which later turns out to be faulty is the way the cards fall from time to time. *Get over it*.




Thats easy to say when you haven't lost your mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, home, business, livelihood etc.  to a US bombing raid.

I prefer to learn from the mistake.  (the mistake of believing 'US intelligence' and media 'truths').


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

Sorry, cuttlefish, but I don't think you have learnt anything. You already knew, apparently, and are merely confirming your bias.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

lucas said:


> You already knew, apparently, and are merely confirming your bias.



You're making assumptions here.

Anyway I think we're heading way off topic so I'll bow out at this point.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> There was plenty of 'linked info' about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  And it was also 'common knowledge'  (what kind of a supporting argument is that?!?).  But in the end it turned out that it was all hyped up BS.  It aggravates me to be seeing the same 'logic' being used to justify this situation.
> 
> Innocent Palestinians are being killed in large numbers at the moment at the hands of israeli actions. That is a 100% fact.




Complete crap and irrelevant to the discussion about GAZA and HAMAS which is different factually and operationally. 

People are getting killed at the hands of Hamas. 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI&NR=1


----------



## Happy (14 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Erroneous information is just that. If you want guarantees about every aspect of life, choose another planet. The point is **** happens. You might have chosen not to act on the "erroneous" advice; Bush and Tony Blair did. Bush has plenty to answer for, but acting on advice which later turns out to be faulty is the way the cards fall from time to time. Get over it.




Another possibility is that weapons were moved, there was some information filtering through.
Inspections were delayed for weeks, then when allowed, top soil was moved some traces of something were picked up and the game continued.
Coalition of willing was simply outsmared.

Here too, Hamas rocket goes to Israel hits target and makes some damage, when Israel rocket comes back to place where the attack come from, civilian children and women are killed.
Very smart for propaganda purposes.

Unless not true, then it puts Israel in worse picture.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> You're making assumptions here.
> 
> Anyway I think we're heading way off topic so I'll bow out at this point.



And here is the knockout punch:



Take the rose coloured glasses off.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Take the rose coloured glasses off.




Ok fair points made.  I see a lot of problems on both sides - there has been provocative behaviour from the Israeli's as well over the years through their settlement developments and military activities - sadly its unlikely to ever be resolved.  (not in our lifetime anyway).


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

A few pages ago, we were being exhorted to believe "human shields" was Israeli propaganda. Can we have our money back, please?


----------



## disarray (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Considering that Israeli attacks are killing hundreds of women and children (920 deaths, 4200 casualties according to UN reports)  I find it pretty easy to see why the propoganda you are pushing isn't being swallowed.




in the last week islamic jihadists have committed 39 terror attacks, killed 219 people and critically injured 332. where's the outrage for this endless stream of allah sanctioned murder?



> Plus of course that the last lot of serious propoganda used to justify mass murder in the middle east was the Iraq WMD story which turned out to be a crock of sh*te.




no it didn't. iraq DID have wmd, iraq DID use them on occassion, and iraq shipped them off to syria who now possess them (and presumably have them pointed at israel)



> Meanwhile there have been 13 Israeli soldiers killed.




are their lives worth less?

i agree with lucas that israel is the front line in the battle between islamism and western democracy. i'm with israel because the alternative is a return to the barbarity of the middle ages.


----------



## Agentm (14 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Perhaps Wayne they should watch this video to see what was really happening with Hamas before the start of the Gaza offensive:
> 
> 
> 
> And it seems we have at least one Hamas sympathiser on these forums. that continually avoids the real material being presented.





snake

why are you trolling the youtube sites and placing absolute garbage like this post the other day. its complete conjecture and laughable.. 

i dont like your agenda myself, and i think anyone seeing that "hamas kiling fields" youtube flick can see straight through it.

i looked at every aspect of this garbage and i agree with many who think this type of misinformation does no one any good.  

imho you need to research this stuff a little before placing very serious propaganda around the place, your simply a puppet as far as i am concerned and lose cred big time on this one.. 

poor show


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 January 2009)

lucas said:


> A few pages ago, we were being exhorted to believe "human shields" was Israeli propaganda. Can we have our money back, please?



Lucas,
All lefties of extreme bent will deny until it hits them in the face - usually it's too late at that stage, especially in the past. Thanks to youtube and technology we can hit them in the face before it is too late. Perhaps they could challenge their own thinking a bit and see what it is others are clearly stating to be factual and concerned about. But as usual they get caught up in emotion and think people are just going off with intolerance and racism and actually support who they inherently despise without knowing. Shame. Hang your heads in shame.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 January 2009)

Agentm said:


> snake
> 
> why are you trolling the youtube sites and placing absolute garbage like this post the other day. its complete conjecture and laughable..
> 
> ...




The video you have talked about showed what Hamas was doing within Gaza. Stopping a wedding because they played music and beat the groom up. The commentary was what it was but the camera doesn't lie. I am happy to see something that can prove the opposite. If you have anything serious to add to the discussion I am happy to read or watch.
Cheers..


----------



## mayk (14 January 2009)

straight from the horse's mouth:


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Lucas,
> All lefties of extreme bent will deny until it hits them in the face - usually it's too late at that stage, especially in the past. Thanks to youtube and technology we can hit them in the face before it is too late. Perhaps they could challenge their own thinking a bit and see what it is others are clearly stating to be factual and concerned about. But as usual they get caught up in emotion and think people are just going off with intolerance and racism and actually support who they inherently despise without knowing. Shame. Hang your heads in shame.





Geez what a pile of stereotypical tripe.  Anybody with an opposing viewpoint is an 'extreme leftie' ?!?  Mate I'm not the one wasting my days searching the web looking for anything to feed my fear of "evil terrorists".




> A few pages ago, we were being exhorted to believe "human shields" was Israeli propaganda. Can we have our money back, please?




I don't know what to make of the second video about Human Shields - I don't speak Arabic - so I don't know the truth of this or otherwise.

But I'll give you a partial refund - I realised I may have been coming across as a strong supporter of the Palestinians while I know of course they carry out acts of aggression against the Israeli's, as shown in the video of them launching the rocket attacks, and I don't condone this either.

My main beef is that I am opposed to the course of action Israel is taking at the moment which will only cause more misery and fuel the fire further. So I certainly don't see Israel as having the moral high ground.

Its just a pointless conflict which both sides seem willing to continue with ad nauseum.


----------



## Agentm (14 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> The video you have talked about showed what Hamas was doing within Gaza. Stopping a wedding because they played music and beat the groom up. The commentary was what it was but the camera doesn't lie. I am happy to see something that can prove the opposite. If you have anything serious to add to the discussion I am happy to read or watch.
> Cheers..




snake


your an intelligent free thinking person, i have no doubt, but your not thinking straight.  its not for me to research every youtube video you post and reveal its credibility, i think its up to the person posting it to check it out myself..  youtube is the greatest place of mis information and propaganda right now..

firstly dont stand behind and defend the vidio unless you "know" 100% its factual, which it isnt.. nothing is confirmed its obvious proaganda.. and very badly done imho..

two point on that video alone.. 

1/ the wedding, no bodies anywhere, no one was shot, the alleged "hamas" were never killing anything, and the so called groom was beaten with sticks, 

it was just a lesson.. for having a soccer game on and perhaps too much noise.. no wedding, just a late night curfew being put in place perhaps?  but a wedding?? dont believe a word of it.. 

2/ these guys lined up and killed?? wtf?? where were they killed. why no pictures of that? could have been just a show to the public, could have hamas themselves pretending to round up people to demonstrate power or authority. a PR stunt... could have been a lot of things, could have been done in any street and made to look like gaza.. but the commentator says they were all killed, no proof.. you get shocked into believing without any reveal or any facts.. clever manipulitve but utter garbage...

the sort of things i think need to be posted are relevant, factual and confirmed information. 

just my 2 cents worth..

you good at researching i can see that, but your being led down the gargen path by believing everything.. imho you need to think it through a little..


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 January 2009)

Agentm said:


> snake
> 
> 
> your an intelligent free thinking person, i have no doubt, but your not thinking straight.  its not for me to research every youtube video you post and reveal its credibility, i think its up to the person posting it to check it out myself..  youtube is the greatest place of mis information and propaganda right now..
> ...




Thanks Agent m for your thoughts on the topic.

I agree with your logic and some parts of that video are debatable. The images are what shocked me. In the real world beating with sticks and walkiing people up a street in line are not allowed. Am I supposed to turn off my sense of concern for other humans?


----------



## Agentm (14 January 2009)

mayk said:


> straight from the horse's mouth:





i assume its this joe guy, from the obama "joe the plumber fame"

i hear there is a media circus around him!!  he has no education in the region, no understandings of the religious beliefs. no background in journalism nor objectivity.. nor in the politics nor knowledge of the players or the history,  nor anything really. there are thousands of reporters unable to enter gaza, firstly they have no courage to go in and only select few are allowed in on invite.  poor old joe has been on a whirlwind tour of isreal, visiting every bomb site, bombed school and he cannot say anything other something pro Israel.. suddenly the joe story is bigger than the war!

joe lacks complete objectivity and is looking pretty sad right now.. what an induction into journalism hey!!


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

I don't know how far off topic this is but this short film is pretty controversial:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60098

17 minutes out of your life, though. Graphic and horrible. Be warned.

Does it incite violence? Should it be banned? Is it propaganda?

Beats me. But this is what the world is up against.


----------



## mayk (14 January 2009)

Agentm said:


> i assume its this joe guy, from the obama "joe the plumber fame"
> 
> i hear there is a media circus around him!!  he has no education in the region, no understandings of the religious beliefs. no background in journalism nor objectivity.. nor in the politics nor knowledge of the players or the history,  nor anything really. there are thousands of reporters unable to enter gaza, firstly they have no courage to go in and only select few are allowed in on invite.  poor old joe has been on a whirlwind tour of isreal, visiting every bomb site, bombed school and he cannot say anything other something pro Israel.. suddenly the joe story is bigger than the war!
> 
> joe lacks complete objectivity and is looking pretty sad right now.. what an induction into journalism hey!!




Easy big fella, it was supposed to be a joke, and treated as such by the media. His logic (of not covering war, which he himself is covering) is hypocritical and stupid.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Geez what a pile of stereotypical tripe.  Anybody with an opposing viewpoint is an 'extreme leftie' ?!?  Mate I'm not the one wasting my days searching the web looking for anything to feed my fear of "evil terrorists".



You asked for a source did you not?
The translation is done by an independant tv company.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> You asked for a source did you not?
> The translation is done by an independant tv company.




I did - but you've been posting numerous video's and links to all sorts of 'fear terrorists' stuff on these forums for quite a long time now - so that is what I was referring to.

I'd also appreciate it if you'd stop labelling anyone that offers a viewpoint that differs to yours an 'extreme leftie' and stereotyping their mindset.  I'm not an 'extreme leftie' and I'm open to reasonable argument/debate and am capable of absorbing new information.

I regret entering this debate because I realise I probably don't have enough understanding of the issue to offer much decent input - the discussion has opened my eyes up to that. Some of the information posted has given me food for thought.


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

Don't go cuttlefish. I respect your right to an opinion. A partial refund is fine with me. Hold onto it. Before long we'll be doing a contra deal, I'm sure.


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Don't go cuttlefish. I respect your right to an opinion. A partial refund is fine with me. Hold onto it. Before long we'll be doing a contra deal, I'm sure.




LOL


----------



## Agentm (14 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Easy big fella, it was supposed to be a joke, and treated as such by the media. His logic (of not covering war, which he himself is covering) is hypocritical and stupid.




not being critical of you at all mayk.. joe is a clown.. 

i think joe is just a massive joke, we see very little good quality objective journalism, the war is hell and we shouldnt be reporting it is just a reflection of himself swimming in a sea of confusion.

this conflict is indeed a very fatal one, imho hamas has underestimated the lack of support from thee arab world, not one border in israel is under threat now, hamas is making their last stand alone, to the north the fighters are scared to act, too scared to fire upon israel the last time they started a war they lost it big time also. imho the victors will be the citizens of israel who wont be subject to cowards hiding in the urban centres behind civilians, women and children and blending in and running away to fight another day, they are simply misguided cowards firing rockets in the hope of a civilian dieing, but when it comes to the street fight, they are getting their arses kicked..

no one wants to see the people of gaza in this plight, least of all the israelis, its a victory for israel that will be hollow and full of sorrow. and incredible  damage and despair.  but when you raise arms against another, are you expected to stand down year in year out as the rockets come through by the hundreds? hamas has played its hand, now it has to fully understand the victors of this war will not be hamas, the arabs have turned their backs on them and left them alone in the fight..

to the people of gaza i feel the most sadness of all.. what is being done to them by their leaders, the decisions to fight a war that can never be won.. 

i cant imagine how terrifying it must be for a child in gaza right now.. if hamas did not have the determination to see this happen then this outcome could have been avoided, but right now there is nothing that can prevent the israelis from achieving their objectives in the military sense. 

why the UN is not running ships into gaza and getting the children out is beyond me, but in the region there are safe havens for civilains.. but certainly not enough to help all..


----------



## mayk (14 January 2009)

Some interesting articles, albeit from lefties 



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-heffernan/memo-to-israel-why-not-tr_b_157545.html



> But let's have a reality check here. Whatever Hamas says, it can no more annihilate Israel than a mouse can crush a tiger. Compared to Israeli firepower, Hamas' rockets might as well be pea shooters. And even as Israel insists that it has no intention of re-occupying Gaza, its forces have--since long before the present war began--kept the region in a straight jacket, severely restricting its people's freedom to move, blocking its exits and trade routes, pinching its access to imported goods of all kinds--not just weapons, but food and medicine. Whatever Israel says of its intentions, it has been steadfastly denying Gazans the right to exist as a people in charge of themselves.
> 
> And that is why people like Olfat Jaawanah, Gazan mother of nine, will go on supporting Hamas and its rockets. And also why Israeli forces cannot stop those rockets by killing alone.
> 
> ...






http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery01122009.html


> How Many Divisions?
> *The Blood-Stained Monster Enters Gaza*
> 
> By URI AVNERY






> War – every war – is the realm of lies. Whether called propaganda or psychological warfare, everybody accepts that it is right to lie for one’s country. Anyone who speaks the truth runs the risk of being branded a traitor.
> 
> The trouble is that propaganda is most convincing for the propagandist himself. And after you convince yourself that a lie is the truth and falsification reality, you can no longer make rational decisions.
> 
> ...


----------



## gordon2007 (14 January 2009)

mayk said:


> If Israel wants to stop those rockets, it must start to do the unthinkable. It must start treating Hamas as a partner for peace,




How would you propose to treat someone as a peace partner when they (hamas) has stated over and over again they do not want peace, they want the total annilation of israel and it's people?

I do think the carrot system has some good merits if, and only if hamas agrees to recognise israel and agrees they have a right to live there. I also think somehow they need to get iran involved and to get iran to accept these same priciples.


----------



## mayk (14 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> How would you propose to treat someone as a peace partner when they (hamas) has stated over and over again they do not want peace, they want the total annilation of israel and it's people?



Here is the answer from the same article


> Let's face a political fact. Given the straight jacket that Israel has imposed on Gaza, no Palestinian leader who publicly accepts Israel's right to exist can prevail. The more Mahmoud Abbas befriends Israel, the more he sinks in the eyes of his own people. That is why Israel must embrace a paradox: it must negotiate with a party that officially denies its right to exist. Practically speaking, it cannot demand renunciation of that denial as a pre-condition of negotiations.
> 
> But which is more important: what Hamas says, or what it does? If Hamas stops the rockets and ends suicide bombings in Israel, what do their words matter? Why should anyone fear these paper bullets of the brain? So long as they are willing to negotiate, to trade days of rocket-free skies for days of blockade-free roads, why not let them say anything they want? The name of the game here is changing what they DO. So long as they can be led to behave AS IF they accepted Israel's right to exist, what they say will not matter.
> So long as our hands are tied to policies and assumptions that have repeatedly failed to do anything but prolong the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, we will never end it. To forge peace between them, we need nothing less than the audacity of hope.


----------



## rowie (14 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Hamas uses women, children and non-military personel as human shields. They are commiting war crimes and refuse to accept peace with Israel or Judaism in the region. They have stated that they love death like the Israelis love life. Considering that this is the case i am baffled as to why the west fall for the sympathy propaganda which only strenthens Hamas and others like them. Property is used as the reason but it is not the only thing.




Load of hogwash crap. No justifying this massacre now amounting to 1000 dead, 1/3 kids. Hamas using them as shields, enough of this garbage already!!! How in the world do you shield against white phosphorous a chemical weapon huh?? Geez open your eyes and see it for what it is! An inhumane massacre!


----------



## rowie (14 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> How would you propose to treat someone as a peace partner when they (hamas) has stated over and over again they do not want peace, they want the total annilation of israel and it's people?
> 
> I do think the carrot system has some good merits if, and only if hamas agrees to recognise israel and agrees they have a right to live there. I also think somehow they need to get iran involved and to get iran to accept these same priciples.




Hamas has time and time again agreed to a 10 year peace truce - read up about it and you will find out. They have proposed a 2 party state many times in the past.


----------



## rowie (14 January 2009)

I dont think children make good shields against Israeli fire anyway. In fact, they seem to attract more firepower. Hamas would have learnt quite sometime ago that using children as shields against israel is a futile exercise considering a third of kids have already been slaughtered!! Wow, what great shields they make!!! Hamas fighter - Hang on, lets hole up in this UN protected school with a whole bunch of women and children and fire from here so we dont get fired back from Israel. Holy crap, they dont seem to care, they have just bombarded 3 UN protected schools filled to the brim with women and children!!!! Do you think they would have learnt that this would not work? Duh!!


----------



## mayk (14 January 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7818122.stm



> Gaza 'human shields' criticised
> Israeli soldiers in a Palestinian house
> Homes have been taken over and residents forced to stay, Amnesty says
> 
> Amnesty International has accused Israel and Hamas of endangering civilian lives in the conflict in Gaza, including the use of "human shields".






> 'Illegitimate targets'
> 
> Amnesty also criticised Israeli forces for bombing civilian homes after they had been used to launch militant attacks when the attackers had probably fled.
> 
> ...




Smoke and mirrors as they say. Chinese philosopher figured that out 2500 years ago, all warfare is based on deception.


----------



## gordon2007 (14 January 2009)

rowie said:


> No justifying this massacre now amounting to 1000 dead, 1/3 kids.





Yes, the amount of dead is a huge. Again, death is death, wether it's 10 or 1000. However, I don't see it as fair to just count the dead this time around. What about the total sum? What about munich olympics? What about all those planes hijacked? What about the years and years of innocent israelis killed in in bombings around the world? What about the embassies in other countries that are bombed, and killing not even israelis, but just local people earning an innocent living? 

It's too easy to just say this time around the massive. Add the years up.


----------



## lucky milo (14 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> Yes, the amount of dead is a huge. Again, death is death, wether it's 10 or 1000. However, I don't see it as fair to just count the dead this time around. What about the total sum? What about munich olympics? What about all those planes hijacked? What about the years and years of innocent israelis killed in in bombings around the world? What about the embassies in other countries that are bombed, and killing not even israelis, but just local people earning an innocent living?
> 
> It's too easy to just say this time around the massive. Add the years up.




yeah add them up & you'll see that for every Israeli killed 20 Palestinians die..
and what innocent Israelis around the world?? Are you saying all those kids & civilians are guilty???...or are u really just jewish


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

mayk said:


> But which is more important: what Hamas says, or what it does? If Hamas stops the rockets and ends suicide bombings in Israel, what do their words matter? Why should anyone fear these paper bullets of the brain?




I don't think I have read a more forlorn argument for one "side" yet.

It's as if you allow the Nuremburg rallies in the hope that Poland won't follow.

Kids have to apologise first, then act out the behaviour. You don't allow them to continue to scream abuse and cross your fingers.

Whoever wrote that twaddle is beyond a twit.


----------



## rowie (14 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> Yes, the amount of dead is a huge. Again, death is death, wether it's 10 or 1000. However, I don't see it as fair to just count the dead this time around. What about the total sum? What about munich olympics? What about all those planes hijacked? What about the years and years of innocent israelis killed in in bombings around the world? What about the embassies in other countries that are bombed, and killing not even israelis, but just local people earning an innocent living?
> 
> It's too easy to just say this time around the massive. Add the years up.




Gordon - how about the entire history of massacres spanning back to the start of human civilisation? Oh wait a second, this is a thread about israel in gaza... in any case, how would all the other killings justify the massacre that is taking place now. Again, the logic beggars belief...


----------



## rowie (14 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I don't think I have read a more forlorn argument for one "side" yet.
> 
> It's as if you allow the Nuremburg rallies in the hope that Poland won't follow.
> 
> ...




Seriously mate, the only twit is you.


----------



## GumbyLearner (14 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Oh wait a second, this is a thread about israel in gaza




Yeah and many jewish people have been massacred for centuries in Europe. Its like saying you cant stand a Zionist, not that Zionism is exclusively based in Israel. Jewish people have been attacked in many places in the past and not just by Muslims. Was Carlos the Jackal a Muslim? Was he born in Israel or Palestine? Was he a descendent of Shem or Noah? No, he was a terrorist!

It is a terrible war just like any other and its a tragedy that so many people have died.


----------



## disarray (14 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Oh wait a second, this is a thread about israel in gaza... in any case, how would all the other killings justify the massacre that is taking place now. Again, the logic beggars belief...




no it doesn't. this isn't just a single isolated incident of israel storming into gaza and kicking heads for no reason at all, it is part of a much wider, much longer struggle between competing ideologies and belief systems. the justifications both sides employ have mounted over a great deal of time, a huge mound of bodies and deep emotional and psychological scarring, and to be perfectly honest rowie your narrow minded bodycount obsessed emotional blathering is starting to get tedious.

omg children are dying!!1! lets make a huge issue out of something that is happening all over the world, but just focus on one instance, and for bonus points lets focus on one where the children who are dying are being used as weapons of war (physical war, propaganda war and psychological war) by a terrorist organisation which publicly states its desire to commit genocide.


----------



## rowie (14 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Yeah and many jewish people have been massacred for centuries in Europe. Its like saying you cant stand a Zionist, not that Zionism is exclusively based in Israel. Jewish people have been attacked in many places in the past and not just by Muslims. Was Carlos the Jackal a Muslim?
> 
> It is a terrible war just like any other and its tragedy that so many people have died.




Yes and we should shake with indignation at each and every massacre and war that has and continues to go on equally and not try to justify them. This massacre is currently taking place, if another one happens which requires another thread to start, I will be the first to express my distaste, irrespective of whether the victims are jews, muslims, christians or whatever! U get my point????


----------



## rowie (14 January 2009)

disarray said:


> no it doesn't. this isn't just a single isolated incident of israel storming into gaza and kicking heads for no reason at all, it is part of a much wider, much longer struggle between competing ideologies and belief systems. the justifications both sides employ have mounted over a great deal of time, a huge mound of bodies and deep emotional and psychological scarring, and to be perfectly honest rowie your narrow minded bodycount obsessed emotional blathering is starting to get tedious.
> 
> omg children are dying!!1! lets make a huge issue out of something that is happening all over the world, but just focus on one instance, and for bonus points lets focus on one where the children who are dying are being used as weapons of war (physical war, propaganda war and psychological war) by a terrorist organisation which publicly states its desire to commit genocide.




read my response to gumby and hopefully get my point. I dont care in any case. 

Read my response to


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

rowie said:


> This massacre is currently taking place, if another one happens which requires another thread to start, I will be the first to express my distaste, irrespective of whether the victims are jews, muslims, christians or whatever! U get my point????




Well, no. Why wait for another thread? Why not argue rationally in this one?


----------



## GumbyLearner (14 January 2009)

rowie said:


> This massacre is currently taking place, if another one happens which requires another thread to start, I will be the first to express my distaste, irrespective of whether the victims are jews, muslims, christians or whatever! U get my point????




Absolutely I get your point. I commend the fact that you respect human rights!

But just remember in years to come when your own civil liberities or human rights have been whittled down to almost nothing and robbed by the actions of terrorists.


----------



## mayk (14 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I don't think I have read a more forlorn argument for one "side" yet.
> 
> It's as if you allow the Nuremburg rallies in the hope that Poland won't follow.
> 
> ...




Israel had an agreement with Hamas just six months back. They knew their slogan back then, it did not just appear out of thin air during this war. 

I bet there will be a truce again, as this fight cannot go on. It will finish with the elections in Israel.  

I also strongly believe that underhand Hamas leaders are using this to get Arab sympathy, which ironically they have failed to achieve. A large factor in all this debate is the dubious role played by the major players in this game at the cost of Gazans. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...or-egyptand-syrias-arab-cold-war-1334257.html


> Anne Penketh: Gaza negotiations are the battleground for Egyptand Syria's 'Arab Cold War'





> Egypt and Syria are exploiting their negotiations with Hamas in a titanic struggle that will determine Arab leadership in the Middle East, according to analysts.
> 
> An "Arab Cold War" is raging between the two countries for supremacy over the Gaza crisis, said the Chatham House Middle East analyst Nadim Shehadi. In the Egyptian camp are other US allies such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, while behind Syria are Qatar, Yemen and Algeria as well as its political (non-Arab) ally Iran, which backs Hamas and the Shia fighters of Hizbollah in Lebanon.




P.S. I warned you the article was from a liberal paper and was presenting a solution, which I thought was interesting.


----------



## rowie (14 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Absolutely I get your point. I commend the fact that your respect human rights!
> 
> But just remember in years to come when your own civil liberities or human rights have been whittled down to almost nothing and robbed by the actions of terrorists.




Exactly why they should be fought at every opportunity.


----------



## rowie (14 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Well, no. Why wait for another thread? Why not argue rationally in this one?




What on earth do u mean???


----------



## gordon2007 (14 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Gordon - how about the entire history of massacres spanning back to the start of human civilisation? Oh wait a second, this is a thread about israel in gaza... in any case, how would all the other killings justify the massacre that is taking place now. Again, the logic beggars belief...




Let me clarify, Israel has been the brunt of major terrorist activities to their embassies world wide. To dismiss those deaths is not fair. In counting israeli deaths versuses hamas deaths, one has to include those too.

I'm not saying their isn't tremendous death right now. That is indisputable. I agree 100% israelis response is overwhelming. However, again to what degree does someone or a country say "enough is enough" and the then try to annihilate the opponent. 

One can argue for both sides til your blue in the face. But no matter who you support or agree with, one cannot deny Hamas is just as guilty of stoking the flames of a fire. 

Is there a certain number that defines a massacre? So when hamas blows up a bus and 12 people die, are they not massacred?


----------



## cuttlefish (14 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> But just remember in years to come when your own civil liberities or human rights have been whittled down to almost nothing and robbed by the actions of terrorists.




umm ... our government is already whittling down civil liberties and human rights under the excuse of protecting us from terrorism.  (see various anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering legislation).   Remember Dr Haneef?


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

rowie said:


> What on earth do u mean???




This is a circular argument.

Israel: Stop publically disavowing our right to exist and we can talk.
Hamas: Cool.

Discussion ensueth...

For some reason you didn't understand my penultimate post. I can't help that.


----------



## gordon2007 (14 January 2009)

lucky milo said:


> Are you saying all those kids & civilians are guilty???...or are u really just jewish





What a ridiculously stupid comment.


----------



## GumbyLearner (14 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> umm ... our government is already whittling down civil liberties and human rights under the excuse of protecting us from terrorism.  (see various anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering legislation).   Remember Dr Haneef?




Your right cuttlefish. Kevin Andrews made a big mistake in that case.
But why did the Australian Parliament need to pass this kind of legislation in the first place? What was their policy intent? To inconvenience the average person in the street and put a microscope on everyone going about their business peacefully?


----------



## rowie (14 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> Let me clarify, Israel has been the brunt of major terrorist activities to their embassies world wide. To dismiss those deaths is not fair. In counting israeli deaths versuses hamas deaths, one has to include those too.
> 
> I'm not saying their isn't tremendous death right now. That is indisputable. I agree 100% israelis response is overwhelming. However, again to what degree does someone or a country say "enough is enough" and the then try to annihilate the opponent.
> 
> ...




Firstly, i have not dismissed any deaths. A suicide bomber blowing up a bus killing a mere 2 israelis is a horrendous act that should be criticized and culprits brought to justice. What I am so pissed about is the current situation, the seemingly random bombardment of a civilian population and the use of white phosphorous on a civilian population. You see those photos of what seem like tens of flares that light up the sky over gaza, those are white phosphorous flares, what can be considered a chemical weapon which creates horrific injuries to those who contact it. Now what I am sick of seeing is innocent people being made to suffer this way. And what I am sick of reading is people trying to justify this. There is absolutely no justification of this - it does no one any good. Terror breeds terror. You want to ensure a steady stream of hamas maniac suicide bombers into israel, the actions of israel has almost guaranteed it. Like I said, I would say the same if it was done to israel.


----------



## rowie (14 January 2009)

lucas said:


> This is a circular argument.
> 
> Israel: Stop publically disavowing our right to exist and we can talk.
> Hamas: Cool.
> ...




Your logic is extremely confusing and alot of the time doesnt make sense. Like your aetheism reasoning in previous posts, quite a load of tripe.


----------



## lucas (14 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Your logic is extremely confusing and alot of the time doesnt make sense. Like your aetheism reasoning in previous posts, quite a load of tripe.




rowie, I made the point that in order to have constructive discussions, both sides have to at least agree that each should exist. Saying so is the first step, not the second.

Now you can disagree with that if you like; mayk did, but he had the reasoning and good intelligence to produce an argument that rebutted what I said. Good for him - that way I might learn something. You, on the other hand, produce no better argument than that I am the twit. Well, I may be, but it doesn't make your posts any less irrational and worthless.

Now we have to wait for the next massacre - and thread - before you plausibly switch sides - because you are entirely driven by emotion.


----------



## rederob (14 January 2009)

Elections are easily won when governments get tough on terror.
Candidates who promise the toughest stance are most likely to be elected.

Then, as the consequences of getting tough come home to roost, the voting public realise they could have made a mistake.

If I was living in a country surrounded by Arabs I would want my government to be strong and decisive in its actions.  And I would want to be proud in my nation's military and its capacities, as shown by actions in the field of battle.

I don't know when exactly a military response becomes "disproportionate", however it may have been "justified" at the outset.  But after a few weeks of "battle" when the only people seemingly getting killed are the "enemy", the penny has well and truly dropped.  Cap this off with significant evidence that women and children account for many of the dead and wounded, and it gets a bit difficult to believe the cause is still "just", let alone justifiable.

Perpetuating wrongs will never achieve a right.
And the Gazan conflict is an extension of many wrongs.
I don't have an answer.
But whatever it may be I doubt it will be achieved by more killings - from either side.

The Northern Island "solution" may provide the parties with some lessons they could all learn from.  However, until there is a real willingness to want to "share" in their collective destinies I can't see that negotiations will achieve any lasting peace.

Unfortunately the Middle East has a sad history of assassinating leaders who stood on platforms advocating a peaceful solution to the Palestinian question.  

Shame!


----------



## mayk (14 January 2009)

Another Internet 2.0 sensation.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Elections are easily won when governments get tough on terror.
> Candidates who promise the toughest stance are most likely to be elected.
> 
> Then, as the consequences of getting tough come home to roost, the voting public realise they could have made a mistake.
> ...



That is a good post Red.
Do you mean northern Ireland? (not Island?)


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Another Internet 2.0 sensation.





Doesn't look like those folks put much thought into their opinions.  It's just a tribalistic response common to both sides that simply dehumanize their foes... kill them all because.... well, just because.

Peter Hitchens (who is more pro-palistinian) offers a stinging rebuke to pro Palestinian protesters in London. Precisely the same attitude with complete lack of thought that is apparent in the Pro Zionist protesters, is also evident with the pro Palestinian protesters. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/01/howled-down-by.html

Rederob's comment - "However, until there is a real willingness to want to "share" in their collective destinies I can't see that negotiations will achieve any lasting peace. is bang on.

However, one observation. One lot of protesters seem to generally focus on the concept of "kill them all", whereas the other lot seem to revolve around the concept of "stop the slaughter".

Important note: The above comment is a gross generalization. There are many Jewish protesters who are not of the "kill them all" mindset, many even sympathetic with the Palestinians. Equally, there are those pro-Palistinians with the "kill them all" mindset too. 

Is there something in that?


----------



## disarray (15 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Rederob's comment - "However, until there is a real willingness to want to "share" in their collective destinies I can't see that negotiations will achieve any lasting peace. is bang on.




there is no "collective destiny" for jews or muslims, their entire faith revolves around being seperate, exclusive and superior.

there is no solution.


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

I found another interesting opinion from Naom Chomsky,

http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N63/chomskytalk.html



> Professor Noam A. Chomsky lectured on Tuesday, Jan. 13 about the ongoing Israeli incursion into Gaza. Chomsky asserted that Israeli provocation was at the root of the continuing conflict with Palestinians and Hamas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

disarray said:


> there is no "collective destiny" for jews or muslims, their entire faith revolves around being seperate, exclusive and superior.
> 
> there is no solution.




I disagree, the main issue is land. Religion is used as an excuse on both sides.


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> However, one observation. One lot of protesters seem to generally focus on the concept of "kill them all", whereas the other lot seem to revolve around the concept of "stop the slaughter".
> 
> Important note: The above comment is a gross generalization. There are many Jewish protesters who are not of the "kill them all" mindset, many even sympathetic with the Palestinians. Equally, there are those pro-Palistinians with the "kill them all" mindset too.
> 
> *Is there something in that? *




Interesting observation. Perhaps just a PR stunt on behalf of Palestinians?


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2009)

disarray said:


> there is no "collective destiny" for jews or muslims, their entire faith revolves around being seperate, exclusive and superior.
> 
> there is no solution.



I also disagree.

The problem is within the minority radical elements of both religions, rather than the religions themselves... and of course land as mayk points out.


----------



## rederob (15 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> That is a good post Red.
> Do you mean northern Ireland? (not Island?)



Spell check corrected me.
I now stand properly corrected.
No man is an Ireland.


----------



## lucas (15 January 2009)

Land or religion; land and religion. And the winner is...?

It doesn't seem to matter much. Only that we can live without religion.

I go along with disarray. If you define yourself by your enemy and what they are not, it is jarring to read of a solution involving a collective destiny. Maybe their collective destiny is to be at each others' throats till kingdom come (listening to that lady in NY awaiting her god's intervention you just want to throw up.)

Other than that, rederob's comment was good.

As for Chomsky, it is healthy to remind yourself that his hobby is being left wing and his field of expertise is linguistics. His comments are no more valid than yours or mine, but probably better expressed. I thought it wouldn't be long before he was trotted out like some aging gladiator. Would he have been able to give his talk if the lecture theatre had been under constant bombardment by rockets during a ceasefire?


----------



## Uncle Barry (15 January 2009)

The fighting in Gaza has left *more than 1,000 Palestinians *dead and *4,600 wounded *and about *half the casualties are civilians*, according to emergency services officials in Gaza. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTMrvNHbj280&refer=home


----------



## pilots (15 January 2009)

disarray said:


> there is no "collective destiny" for jews or muslims, their entire faith revolves around being seperate, exclusive and superior.
> 
> there is no solution.




What I find strange is that the Jews and Muslims have allot beliefs, that are all most the same, yet they can't live side by side.


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 January 2009)

pilots said:


> What I find strange is that the Jews and Muslims have allot beliefs, that are all most the same, *yet they can't live side by side.*




Wrong. Many times throughout the millenia of history, the majority of Jews and Muslims have lived happily cheek by jowl for extended periods. Here is a pretty good link that details the pre-history & recent history of the whole sad mess that has evolved today. Especially the Early History and British Mandate sections.

http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache...ns+&+jews+before+WW2&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=au




aj


----------



## Agentm (15 January 2009)

Uncle Barry said:


> The fighting in Gaza has left *more than 1,000 Palestinians *dead and *4,600 wounded *and about *half the casualties are civilians*, according to emergency services officials in Gaza.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTMrvNHbj280&refer=home




somewhere in all this the hamas military must be evaluating its effectiveness to win this current battle. i see this as being a very difficult task right now myself. they would be getting a lot of flak from their own community in fighting this battle around their home and from their roofs imho. support would have to be decreasing for hamas surely?

if hamas has 10,000 to 15,000 fighters in the battle today and has 500 dead and 2,300 wounded then your already in a very hard position to repel the military thats bound to be demoralising your troops. how to resupply and keep the battle co ordinated become increasingly difficult and frustrating when facing this type of military onslaught that you have provoked.

a few more months of this and unconditional surrender would be your only option, and early truce and agreement to stop firing upon israeli civilians would be contemplated right now, i cant see the outcome of hamas firing minimal numbers of rockets into israel and losing those numbers of combatants as a clever strategic military move. i think they are getting their pants flogged in this battle right now in every sense.

hamas would need to consider both as governing body and militarily if the outcome from this battle will leave them capable of maintaining their democratic ruling position, or holding any legitimate  position of power in the future for the gaza community as a whole right now.

its a sad tale getting sadder and sadder each day


----------



## rowie (15 January 2009)

Agentm said:


> somewhere in all this the hamas military must be evaluating its effectiveness to win this current battle. i see this as being a very difficult task right now myself. they would be getting a lot of flak from their own community in fighting this battle around their home and from their roofs imho. support would have to be decreasing for hamas surely?
> 
> if hamas has 10,000 to 15,000 fighters in the battle today and has 500 dead and 2,300 wounded then your already in a very hard position to repel the military thats bound to be demoralising your troops. how to resupply and keep the battle co ordinated become increasingly difficult and frustrating when facing this type of military onslaught that you have provoked.
> 
> ...





I beg to differ. I think Hamas is very much strengthened by these sorts of attacks because the population feel that they are the only ones standing up to the israelis. Hence theyre 'shock' elections victory back in 2006 when all thought that Fatah would cruise to victory. Hamas election victory was attributed to theyre apparent low level of corruption and willingness to resist israeli aggression and occupation. When you are pushed to a corner without much hope for your future, I guess you would choose someone who was willing to fight for you rather than roll over and give up. I would guess that if an election was held a month after these hostilities are over, Hamas would get in with an even bigger majority than the elections in 2006 - they are seen as the only ones willing to resist and help in this war.


----------



## Agentm (15 January 2009)

rowie said:


> I beg to differ. I think Hamas is very much strengthened by these sorts of attacks because the population feel that they are the only ones standing up to the israelis. Hence theyre 'shock' elections victory back in 2006 when all thought that Fatah would cruise to victory. Hamas election victory was attributed to theyre apparent low level of corruption and willingness to resist israeli aggression and occupation. When you are pushed to a corner without much hope for your future, I guess you would choose someone who was willing to fight for you rather than roll over and give up. I would guess that if an election was held a month after these hostilities are over, Hamas would get in with an even bigger majority than the elections in 2006 - they are seen as the only ones willing to resist and help in this war.




ok, its a very interesting way to wage a war, knowingly take on a military thats going to annihilate you and they use that defeat to bolster up support for another election whist you are already in power, its certainly a shame that a governing body would undertake the risk of loss of life of its own members and the civilian population that put it in power to achieve a further democratic victory at a later point.. strategically they must be masters at knowing how to be completely overwhelmed in a battle and then still achieve victory later to get a bigger electoral vote,, what if the military you take on finds you first and sends a pretty large bomb into your bunker, can you calculate exactly when that happens before surrender? are you sure this is the military objective of hamas?

if that is the objective of the hamas military then so be it i guess. its going to cost so many lives of innocent humans imho to achieve it and still is tragic imho.., possibly more so.. i view it as almost a war crime to lose a battle and harm your citizens for a future election victory whilst in power..


----------



## cuttlefish (15 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> I also disagree.
> 
> The problem is within the minority radical elements of both religions, rather than the religions themselves... and of course land as mayk points out.




This is an important point.  Its easy to view the conflict as every Palestinian being a rampant, militant, rocket launching, Jew hating fanatic - but given peaceful conditions the majority of people are typically happy to live in peace.

The current Israeli offensive is more institutional in that its a government military offensive - i.e. theoretically not an operation of fanatics - which is why its extremely dissappointing that there appears to be such careless disregard for the killing of innocents, but the majority of the Israeli people will also be content to live in peace if Hamas would stop launching rockets at them.   

The fact that the supposedly responsible/moral (i.e.'non-terrorist') Israeli government has also been guilty of fairly aggressive behaviour in relation to settlement developments and restriction of movement/access in disputed areas - and again typically with little regard for human life - does help to increase the proportion of fanatical, Jew hating, rocket launching members in Palestinian society.


----------



## Grumpy Old Man (15 January 2009)

pilots said:


> What I find strange is that the Jews and Muslims have allot beliefs, that are all most the same, yet they can't live side by side.




What makes anyone think that this has anything to do with religion!!!???  The reality is that almost all religions (including Islam and Judism) teach tolerance and compassion for other people.  If people lived by their religion and practiced what their ancestors learned before them (killing, theft, greed etc lead to social breakdown), then this carnage we are seeing might be avoided.

The reality is greed and fear cause war and murder.  Nothing more, nothing less.  What causes greed and fear - mostly ignorance and jealousy.  How do you fight ignorance and jealously?  Education, balanced judicial system and responsible media.  All absent in this stupid mess - and also unfortunately absent on this discussion thread.


----------



## trading_rookie (15 January 2009)

> Land or religion; land and religion. And the winner is...?




...if I was a betting man, I'd say the winner will be Syria. With the Israeli's leaving a bad taste in the mouths of the world's populace over it's treatment of civilians in the Gaza strip, it appears all is going to plan for Syria who are fighting a proxy war against Israel via Sunni Hamas...kinda like the Soviets did in Vietnam and Korea against the US or the US against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Syria appears to be in the drivers seat to get what they want most, the Golan Heights in return for recognising Israeli sovereignty.

And to top it off, they'll remain in Lebanon with no more than a slap on the wrist for the murder of the progressive Lebanese PM who was building the country up again from the ruins of the long running civil war and wanting to drive the Syrians out of the government and military. The last thing the UN/US want is to impose sanctions and drive the Syrians into the arms of the Iranians.

It's funny what we see on tv and what is really being played out behind closed doors far away from any shots being fired...


----------



## rowie (15 January 2009)

Agentm said:


> ok, its a very interesting way to wage a war, knowingly take on a military thats going to annihilate you and they use that defeat to bolster up support for another election whist you are already in power, its certainly a shame that a governing body would undertake the risk of loss of life of its own members and the civilian population that put it in power to achieve a further democratic victory at a later point.. strategically they must be masters at knowing how to be completely overwhelmed in a battle and then still achieve victory later to get a bigger electoral vote,, what if the military you take on finds you first and sends a pretty large bomb into your bunker, can you calculate exactly when that happens before surrender? are you sure this is the military objective of hamas?
> 
> if that is the objective of the hamas military then so be it i guess. its going to cost so many lives of innocent humans imho to achieve it and still is tragic imho.., possibly more so.. i view it as almost a war crime to lose a battle and harm your citizens for a future election victory whilst in power..





First and foremostly, where in my thread did I say that Hamas were doing this for electoral gain? The objective is resistance against occupation and reclaiming land that rightfully belongs to a palestinian state as agreed and passed through numerous UN resolutions. All I said in my last thread was that instead of making Hamas unpopular, the recent war is probably going to make them more popular. That is all.... Nothing at all was mentioned that they were resisting to win another election!!!


----------



## rowie (15 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> This is an important point.  Its easy to view the conflict as every Palestinian being a rampant, militant, rocket launching, Jew hating fanatic - but given peaceful conditions the majority of people are typically happy to live in peace.
> 
> The current Israeli offensive is more institutional in that its a government military offensive - i.e. theoretically not an operation of fanatics - which is why its extremely dissappointing that there appears to be such careless disregard for the killing of innocents, but the majority of the Israeli people will also be content to live in peace if Hamas would stop launching rockets at them.
> 
> The fact that the supposedly responsible/moral (i.e.'non-terrorist') Israeli government has also been guilty of fairly aggressive behaviour in relation to settlement developments and restriction of movement/access in disputed areas - and again typically with little regard for human life - does help to increase the proportion of fanatical, Jew hating, rocket launching members in Palestinian society.





Excellent point.


----------



## Agentm (15 January 2009)

rowie said:


> First and foremostly, where in my thread did I say that Hamas were doing this for electoral gain? The objective is resistance against occupation and reclaiming land that rightfully belongs to a palestinian state as agreed and passed through numerous UN resolutions. All I said in my last thread was that instead of making Hamas unpopular, the recent war is probably going to make them more popular. That is all.... Nothing at all was mentioned that they were resisting to win another election!!!




rowie you disagreed on my point that humas is getting wiped militarily and may risk becoming less popular for it, and put the view they would be more popular for doing so.. you claim they are resisting, but i think they actually were the aggressors in this particular battle, i cant see them resisting and winning the battle myself then being voted in by the population when the toll of civilian lives increase and hamas wont relent on the rockets into israel..

surely now the military is in their own back yard hamas can now show their military supremacy and  get on with the victory over the israeli army? if they cant then i think they are fighting a battle they will not win and may not be as popular for doing so 

i question the military objectives here of hamas, they are seriously getting annihilated and their civilian population they oversee is not getting any relief from them at all.  i would have thought it would have made good sense to cease the battle that imho they cannot win. i cannot see them driving back the israeli army and air force out of their region and out of their air space.

surely the objective of the battle is to stay alive? or is this a suicide mission?

i cant see where hamas is going to win here, they are heading for a position where only unconditional surrender may be the only outcome. 

surely the importance of firing rockets at civilians in israel at the expense of your own population, the military and the infrastructure of gaza itself has to be weighed up in a military objective way at some stage?

i think the suffering they have put their own populace under right now is tragic. i cannot see the israeli objective changing and see them retreat this minute.. its a harsh battle when you choose to hide in a fire from an civilian environment and a highly populated urban environment.


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

Grumpy Old Man said:


> The reality is greed and fear cause war and murder.  Nothing more, nothing less.  What causes greed and fear - mostly ignorance and jealousy.  How do you fight ignorance and jealously?  Education, balanced judicial system and responsible media.  All absent in this stupid mess - and also unfortunately absent on this discussion thread.




Good point, I agree.


----------



## rowie (15 January 2009)

Agentm said:


> rowie you disagreed on my point that humas is getting wiped militarily and may risk becoming less popular for it, and put the view they would be more popular for doing so.. you claim they are resisting, but i think they actually were the aggressors in this particular battle, i cant see them resisting and winning the battle myself then being voted in by the population when the toll of civilian lives increase and hamas wont relent on the rockets into israel..
> 
> surely now the military is in their own back yard hamas can now show their military supremacy and  get on with the victory over the israeli army? if they cant then i think they are fighting a battle they will not win and may not be as popular for doing so
> 
> ...




Without going into the recent history of events in too much depth - 
1. Hamas were not the aggressors in this war. How they can be perceived as aggressors in this war is beyond me. 
2. The suffering that Gazans are currently experiencing has been a direct consequence of Israeli action. Majority of Gazans know and believe this, they do not believe for a second that it is caused by Hamas. 
3. Gazans have been under an embargo/blocakade for the past year where even basic medical supplies into Gaza are denied. Life in Gaza has become intolerable. Add to that constant raids by IDF forces into Gaza over the years and indiscriminate shootings on Gazans by IDF troops. In 2008 alone, 73 Gazan minors (under the age of 15) were killed directly by IDF troops (most with fatal gunshots). 

Now please try to understand living under these circumstances how you would feel about Hamas firing rockets into Israel from a Gazan perspective. Have they no right to self defense either? Mind you, these rockets from Hamas have resulted in the deaths of 16 Israelis over an 8 year period. This is tragic but never are the numbers mentioned simply because they would clearly show how heavy handed Israels response really is.    

Hence under these circumstances perhaps you can begin to understand why Hamas will most likely continue to have support in Gaza. They are the only force (albeit pathetically weak) resisting this unlawful occupation. Much like the vietnamese farmers were during the Vietnam war in spite of the most overwhelming force that was the US military at the time. Also remember that Palestinians have lived through Israeli aggression for the past 60 years. This war is by no means a one off event. Yes, the intention of this Israeli assault is amongst other reasons to bring the population down to its knees, but it is precisely these sorts of actions that will make Gazans dig deeper and resist further. 

To understand this, I think you have to acknowledge and understand the suffering that Gazans go through because of the Israeli occupation and how they feel it is also theyre right to defend themselves. Hell they are not even allowed to leave the hell hole prison that Gaza has turned into.


----------



## lucas (15 January 2009)

Grumpy Old Man said:


> What makes anyone think that this has anything to do with religion!!!???  ...
> 
> The reality is greed and fear cause war and murder.  Nothing more, nothing less.  What causes greed and fear - mostly ignorance and jealousy.  How do you fight ignorance and jealously?  Education, balanced judicial system and responsible media.  All absent in this stupid mess - and also unfortunately absent on this discussion thread.




Sigh.

So we are wrong and you are right. I could just kick myself.

Another balanced grumpy.


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Important note: The above comment is a gross generalization. There are many Jewish protesters who are not of the "kill them all" mindset, many even sympathetic with the Palestinians. Equally, there are those pro-Palistinians with the "kill them all" mindset too.



An illustration:


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

lucas said:


> As for Chomsky, it is healthy to remind yourself that his hobby is being left wing and his field of expertise is linguistics. His comments are no more valid than yours or mine, but probably better expressed. I thought it wouldn't be long before he was trotted out like some aging gladiator. Would he have been able to give his talk if the lecture theatre had been under constant bombardment by rockets during a ceasefire?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky 
He is highly respected scholar, and quite political. He has written books on this subject. 

 Read his childhood history, and you will understand why he understands this conflict better and his opinions matter more than either of us. From the above wiki link.



> Chomsky was born to Jewish parents in the East Oak Lane neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of Hebrew scholar and IWW member William Chomsky (1896–1977), a native of Ukraine. His mother, Elsie Chomsky (nÃ©e Simonofsky), native of what is present day Belarus, grew up in the United States and spoke "ordinary New York English", unlike her husband. Their first language was Yiddish [17], but Chomsky said it was "taboo" in his family to speak it [17]. He describes his family as living in a sort of "Jewish ghetto", split into a "Yiddish side" and "Hebrew side", with his family aligning with the latter and bringing him up "immersed in Hebrew culture and literature". Chomsky also describes tensions he personally experienced with Irish Catholics and anti-semitism in the mid-1930s. In a discussion of the irony of his staying in the 1980s in a Jesuit House in Central America, Chomsky explained that during his childhood, "We were the only Jewish family around. I grew up with a visceral fear of Catholics. They're the people who beat you up on your way to school. So I knew when they came out of that building down the street, which was the Jesuit school, they were raving anti-Semites. So childhood memories took a long time to overcome."[18]


----------



## trading_rookie (15 January 2009)

> Chomsky was born to Jewish parents in the East Oak Lane neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of Hebrew scholar and IWW member William Chomsky (1896–1977), a native of Ukraine.




So how does his background make him an expert on Middle-East issues? Being Jewish doesn't necessarily make one an Israeli.


----------



## lucas (15 January 2009)

mayk said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
> He is highly respected scholar, and quite political. He has written books on this subject.




My response is that people who are highly political should get into politics.

Perhaps it's just me but it's the glazed over eyes of the mini-academics who wet themselves when he speaks that bug me. Sort of the same feeling I get when Oprah throws cars at the audience.

No. Chomsky should stick to parsing sentences. Apart from that, there is no balance.


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

trading_rookie said:


> So how does his background make him an expert on Middle-East issues? Being Jewish doesn't necessarily make one an Israeli.




I think you missed the point. Reread the whole passage. I was talking about this :
_In a discussion of the irony of his staying in the 1980s in a Jesuit House in Central America, Chomsky explained that during his childhood, "We were the only Jewish family around. I grew up with a visceral fear of Catholics. They're the people who beat you up on your way to school. So I knew when they came out of that building down the street, which was the Jesuit school, they were raving anti-Semites. So childhood memories took a long time to overcome._

By any stretch of imagination it is futile to argue that his opinion does not matter. His opinion as a philosopher of our times does matter. You might not agree with me but most people would.
Read up he debated Israel issue with prominent scholars. here is a  transcript of one of his debates.
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20051129.htm


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Perhaps it's just me but it's the glazed over eyes of the mini-academics who wet themselves when he speaks that bug me. *Sort of the same feeling I get when Oprah throws cars at the audience.*



lol


----------



## lucas (15 January 2009)

OK so I'm an iconoclast. But I can't join in when too many neurons are swaying in the same direction. I'm getting that feeling now.

I'd go to a debate where Noam debates another heavyweight, but I don't want to know about his bias without some sort of containment.

That said, I'm not unaware of his smarts.


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I'd go to a debate where Noam debates another heavyweight, but I don't want to know about his bias without some sort of containment.




In case you missed, I added a debate for you in my last post.
http://www.chomsky.info/debates/20051129.htm

A good website to get to know his views on a wide range of issues.


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 January 2009)

lucas said:


> OK so I'm an iconoclast. But I can't join in when too many neurons are swaying in the same direction. I'm getting that feeling now.
> 
> I'd go to a debate where Noam debates another heavyweight, but I don't want to know about his bias without some sort of containment.
> 
> That said, I'm not unaware of his smarts.




Wow the big hitter Noam Chomsky. I wonder if he grew up playing baseball. Im sure all those other scary kids beat him to a pulp when he was kid. Yeah right!!! :bs:

He probably agrees with that elitist preacher from the UN, Dr. Richard Falk that suicide bombings are a 'valid' form of resistance.


----------



## lucas (15 January 2009)

Well, if I want to go left with a vengeance, I'll stick to Gore Vidal.

At least he is entertaining, but getting on now, sadly.


----------



## cuttlefish (15 January 2009)

mayk said:


> An illustration:
> _<edit...youtube vid link...>_




What a positive message on humanity that video is - great to see that individuals are prepared to have the courage to not repeat the mistakes of history.


----------



## trading_rookie (15 January 2009)

> I think you missed the point.




Well, what is the point? That his experiences on the other side of the Atlantic with the Gentiles makes him an expert on the Middle East? Or that religious conflict is the sole reason for conflict in the Middle East.

To me he resembles one of those Yanks with Irish ancestry from Boston who go on about the IRA while in Dublin...


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

trading_rookie said:


> Well, what is the point? That his experiences on the other side of the Atlantic with the Gentiles makes him an expert on the Middle East? Or that religious conflict is the sole reason for conflict in the Middle East.
> 
> To me he resembles one of those Yanks with Irish ancestry from Boston who go on about the IRA while in Dublin...




The point is, he knows how religion can be used by people for political gains, and the young impressionable minds are most susceptible to such aggression. 

Mate if you don't know Noam Chomsky views, why don't read them? His views are well respected all around the world. He is not much liked in conservative America for his views. But I find them quite interesting. 

A good intellectual always propose solutions, which he has done many times and debated such solutions. An example of that I posted earlier.

I think this thread has gone off topic, so I will stop posting about Noam...


----------



## lucas (15 January 2009)

> If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.




Noam Chomsky 1990


----------



## Buddy (15 January 2009)

trading_rookie said:


> Well, what is the point? That his experiences on the other side of the Atlantic with the Gentiles makes him an expert on the Middle East? Or that religious conflict is the sole reason for conflict in the Middle East.
> 
> To me he resembles one of those Yanks with Irish ancestry from Boston who go on about the IRA while in Dublin...




Wow, this thread really has gone off topic. Now you're arguing about who is allowed to have a valid opinion or something to say on the matter. I wonder if you will allow the Zionists (say Ben-Gurion or Netenaya) to express an opinion. Probably.


----------



## lucas (15 January 2009)

Buddy said:


> I wonder if you will allow the Zionists (say Ben-Gurion or Netenaya) to express an opinion. Probably.




Fine with me. It will be about as balanced as Chomsky's views on American Presidents post 1945.

I don't think this is off topic. What I think is off topic is being forced to read screeds of emotional comment about the Daily News. Which I have already read.


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Fine with me. It will be about as balanced as Chomsky's views on American Presidents post 1945.
> 
> I don't think this is off topic. What I think is off topic is being forced to read screeds of emotional comment about the Daily News. Which I have already read.




Agreed Lucas.

Chomsky, the battler's battler. Who learned how to communicate with the workers on the building sites, the wharves, the workshops..to give their linguisitical failings some voice in the form of admitting to RELATIVELY nothing!

What a champ for the poor and down-and-out.


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Agreed Lucas.
> 
> Chomsky the battler's battler. Who learned how to communicate with the workers on the building sites, the wharves, the workshops..to give their linguisitical failings some voice in the form of admitting to RELATIVELY nothing!
> 
> What a champ for the poor and down-and-out.




We can have a separate thread on Noam Chomsky bashing .


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 January 2009)

mayk said:


> We can have a separate thread on Noam Chomsky bashing .




Noam Chomsky is the one king of academic elitist ideas that I disagree with 100%. He is someone who will tell you there are no moral absolutes! Well, I would like to ask him if he is ABSOLUTELY sure?


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Noam Chomsky is the king of academic elitist that I diagree with 100%. He is someone who will tell you there are no moral absolutes! Well, I would like to ask him if he is ABSOLUTELY sure?




On all aspects or just on morality?


----------



## lucas (15 January 2009)

I admit to having been churlish about your bringing Chomsky up. Sorry.

It's just he always turns up. And he's really quite way out there. As is Vidal.

Meanwhile it's bloody hot here in Sydney and I feel foul.

Do you think that we would all behave as they who inhabit those (literal) hot spots - simply because of relentless heat?

And what of that theory that these world trouble spots are geographically determined - some sort of psychic conglomeration of trouble. Anyone have a link to that? I'd like to read more about it. I think it was a scientific offering, not completely barmy.


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 January 2009)

mayk said:


> On all aspects or just on morality?




Think about it!


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Think about it!



, I get your point. He is quite controversial, and I don't agree with him 100%, but I don't 100% disagree with him either. 

 Lets move on to Gaza.


----------



## Buddy (15 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Fine with me. It will be about as balanced as Chomsky's views on American Presidents post 1945.
> 
> I don't think this is off topic. What I think is off topic is being forced to read screeds of emotional comment about the Daily News. Which I have already read.




Well, for what's worth  IMO you're :topic .
I thought this was an interesting thread reading views about "Israel in the Gaza" but no more.  As far as I'm concerned reading about what you think of Chomsky is irrelevant. Who cares?

How about....is Israel being an expanionist colonialist by entering Gaza or are they simply defending themselves? And....Do the Palestinians have any right to property ownership in the land purchased by the Zionists (say from the late 1800's on) or taken (say post WW2) or has that right been legitimately expunged. And..... Why are not the Palestinians permitted to leave Gaza and settle in other Arab nations (say Jordan or Syria).  And why doesn't Israel have a constitution, and if they did would it change the plight of the original Palestinians who used to live there (some maybe still alive but the children and grandchildren certainly are)? Eh?

These are more important issues than arguing about some aging lefty.


----------



## trading_rookie (15 January 2009)

> Wow, this thread really has gone off topic. Now you're arguing about who is allowed to have a valid opinion or something to say on the matter. I wonder if you will allow the Zionists (say Ben-Gurion or Netenaya) to express an opinion. Probably.




Though it may appear that way, it’s not the case. My point was what makes him supposedly the scholars scholar on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict – the fact that he happens to be Jewish? If he were a Palestinian who was born and raised in Auburn, Sydney I’d ask a similar question.



> I wonder if you will allow the Zionists (say Ben-Gurion or Netenaya) to express opinion. Probably.



You’re welcome to read my post on page 36 – doubt it’s pro-zionist or pro-arab…



> Mate if you don't know Noam Chomsky views, why don't read them? His views are well respected all around the world. He is not much liked in conservative America for his views. But I find them quite interesting.




I’ll pass, too many scholars, too many ego’s ;-)



> Do you think that we would all behave as they who inhabit those (literal) hot spots - simply because of relentless heat?




That’s racism !!!!!


----------



## rowie (15 January 2009)

mayk said:


> The point is, he knows how religion can be used by people for political gains, and the young impressionable minds are most susceptible to such aggression.
> 
> Mate if you don't know Noam Chomsky views, why don't read them? His views are well respected all around the world. He is not much liked in conservative America for his views. But I find them quite interesting.
> 
> ...




Mayk, no point trying to convince these numb nuts that Noam Chomskys opinions matter. He will be promptly written off as a leftie, commy etc even though he is one of the most respected people on earth when it comes to political analysis in particular US imperialism. Apparently you have to live in the middle east and not be an academic to have a valid opinion. Well and truly a bunch of numb nuts on this thread.


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 January 2009)

Buddy said:


> Well, for what's worth  IMO you're :topic .
> I thought this was an interesting thread reading views about "Israel in the Gaza" but no more.  As far as I'm concerned reading about what you think of Chomsky is irrelevant. Who cares?
> 
> How about....is Israel being an expanionist colonialist by entering Gaza or are they simply defending themselves? And....Do the Palestinians have any right to property ownership in the land purchased by the Zionists (say from the late 1800's on) or taken (say post WW2) or has that right been legitimately expunged. And..... Why are not the Palestinians permitted to leave Gaza and settle in other Arab nations (say Jordan or Syria).  And why doesn't Israel have a constitution, and if they did would it change the plight of the original Palestinians who used to live there (some maybe still alive but the children and grandchildren certainly are)? Eh?
> ...




I agree Buddy, no more talk of Chomsky or his believe in relativism as a justification for anarchy.


----------



## lucas (15 January 2009)

Buddy, come on - I agree that what I have to say about the aging lefty is of no consequence but what he says resonates with many. And he has stacks to say about this very issue.

So IMO, it's on topic. But I think the thread has probably said as much as it can ever say and I'm going to move on...

Thanks. Bye.

(and rowie, please grow a brain at some time in the future...)


----------



## rowie (15 January 2009)

trading_rookie said:


> Though it may appear that way, it’s not the case. My point was what makes him supposedly the scholars scholar on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict – the fact that he happens to be Jewish? If he were a Palestinian who was born and raised in Auburn, Sydney I’d ask a similar question.
> 
> 
> You’re welcome to read my post on page 36 – doubt it’s pro-zionist or pro-arab…
> ...





Pass on Chomsky fine but then dont question his credentials. You should at the least know what he is on about before you pass sweeping generalisations and judgement based on him being an egotistical scholar.


----------



## trading_rookie (15 January 2009)

> Apparently you have to live in the middle east and not be an academic to have a valid opinion. Well and truly a bunch of numb nuts on this thread.




...and I guess one has to be a numb nut to take the comments out of context.


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 January 2009)

rowie said:


> You should at the least know what he is on about before you pass sweeping generalisations and judgement based on him being an egotistical scholar.




Just happy to return the favour.


----------



## rowie (15 January 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Just happy to return the favour.




Thanks.


----------



## disarray (15 January 2009)

mayk said:


> I disagree, the main issue is land. Religion is used as an excuse on both sides.






			
				WayneL said:
			
		

> The problem is within the minority radical elements of both religions, rather than the religions themselves






			
				pilots said:
			
		

> What I find strange is that the Jews and Muslims have allot beliefs, that are all most the same, yet they can't live side by side.






			
				cuttlefish said:
			
		

> This is an important point. Its easy to view the conflict as every Palestinian being a rampant, militant, rocket launching, Jew hating fanatic - but given peaceful conditions the majority of people are typically happy to live in peace






			
				Grumpy Old Man said:
			
		

> What makes anyone think that this has anything to do with religion!!!??? The reality is that almost all religions (including Islam and Judism) teach tolerance and compassion for other people. If people lived by their religion and practiced what their ancestors learned before them (killing, theft, greed etc lead to social breakdown), then this carnage we are seeing might be avoided.




i think you guys are unaware of the nature of islam and think its "just another religion" like buddhism or christianity or what have you where people just pray to god and thats it. it's not, islam is a complete social system which tells you what to believe, how to behave, and what extreme punishments are applicable for those who deviate from the path.

please take the time to read Islam 101 which explains a great deal about the history and nature of the religion. put simply, there may be moderate muslims but there is NO moderate islam. it is of the utmost importance for western civilisation to refuse to tolerate or accept this objectionable philosophy, which ranks right up there with nazism and other totalitarian social systems that deny and actively denounce the fundamental human freedoms we consider central to our society.

from the above link -



> As we have seen, contrary to the widespread insistence that true Islam is pacific even if a handful of its adherents are violent, the Islamic sources make clear that engaging in violence against non-Muslims is a central and indispensable principle to Islam. Islam is less a personal faith than a political ideology that exists in a fundamental and permanent state of war with non-Islamic civilizations, cultures, and individuals. The Islamic holy texts outline a social, governmental, and economic system for all mankind. Those cultures and individuals who do not submit to Islamic governance exist in an ipso facto state of rebellion with Allah and must be forcibly brought into submission. The misbegotten term "Islamo-fascism" is wholly redundant: Islam itself is a kind of fascism that achieves its full and proper form only when it assumes the powers of the state.
> 
> The spectacular acts of Islamic terrorism in the late 20th and early 21st centuries are but the most recent manifestation of a global war of conquest that Islam has been waging since the days of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th Century AD and that continues apace today. This is the simple, glaring truth that is staring the world today in the face -- and which has stared it in the face numerous times in the past -- but which it seems few today are willing to contemplate.


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

disarray said:


> i think you guys are unaware of the nature of islam and think its "just another religion" like buddhism or christianity or what have you where people just pray to god and thats it. it's not, islam is a complete social system which tells you what to believe, how to behave, and what extreme punishments are applicable for those who deviate from the path.




I am really terrified . I was blinded by those lefties. ...

I think you missed religion 101. Please go and study that first.


----------



## disarray (15 January 2009)

so you didn't even read the essay which references the islamic sources, but instead you post some smartass comment that (presumably) all religions are good or something like that? like the aztecs? or the norse? because religious human sacrifice is a very pious and uplifting thing


----------



## cuttlefish (15 January 2009)

disarray said:


> please take the time to read Islam 101





ahem ... yeah like a site called "Jihadwatch" with all sorts of paranoid paraphenalia about Islam and Jihad is going to present a nice balanced article on Islam     What a joke.

Check out the articles here - they've got the real truth:  www.ibelieveeverybitofparanoidcr*pIread.com


----------



## disarray (15 January 2009)

so let me get this straight, you make assumptions about the site, its author and its content based solely on its url?

did you look at the site? did you read ANY of the link i posted? did you put any effort whatsoever into discovering who the authors of the site are, why they put the site together, the message they are putting forward, the publicised debates they have with islamic scholars, their numerous published books, articles and lecture tours, their work with the FBI, military and terrorism task force, or look at the FAQ explaining in detail their credentials? 

yeah it sure is much easier just to sit back and spout your opinion without any evidence and dismiss out of hand reasoned and solidly referenced primary source material because you make some halfassed assumption based on the title of a url


----------



## rederob (15 January 2009)

disarray said:


> yeah it sure is much easier just to sit back and spout your opinion without any evidence and dismiss out of hand reasoned and solidly referenced primary source material because you make some halfassed assumption based on the title of a url



Or...
you make well informed commentary like....







disarray said:


> there is no "collective destiny" for jews or muslims, their entire faith revolves around being seperate, exclusive and superior.
> 
> there is no solution.


----------



## cuttlefish (15 January 2009)

disarray said:


> so let me get this straight, you make assumptions about the site, its author and its content based solely on its url?
> 
> did you look at the site? did you read ANY of the link i posted? did you put any effort whatsoever into discovering who the authors of the site are, why they put the site together, the message they are putting forward, the publicised debates they have with islamic scholars, their numerous published books, articles and lecture tours, their work with the FBI, military and terrorism task force, or look at the FAQ explaining in detail their credentials?
> 
> yeah it sure is much easier just to sit back and spout your opinion without any evidence and dismiss out of hand reasoned and solidly referenced primary source material because you make some halfassed assumption based on the title of a url





Yes prior to posting my previous response, I did waste a few minutes skimming through the material on the 'lesson' on the site  - which started out seemingly reasonable but deteriorated.  I noticed the unusual name for the site and had a bit of a look at why the site was put together and saw a whole bunch of fear mongering material on Islam.  

What suprises me is that you would even think that anyone would consider literature posted on this site a credible source of factual information on Islam.

So no - it wasn't a halfassed assumption - but it did only require about 5 minutes perusal to confirm to me what I suspected the site stood for.


----------



## disarray (15 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Or...
> you make well informed commentary like....




or you could even learn to differentiate between when a person is giving a personal opinion or when they are presenting (what they believe to be) facts. hint: one of them usually provides outside references, the other doesn't.



> What suprises me is that you would even think that anyone would consider literature posted on this site a credible source of factual information on Islam.




oh i don't know, maybe because they directly reference the koran and the teachings of islamic scholars? call me crazy i know.


----------



## cuttlefish (15 January 2009)

disarray said:


> oh i don't know, maybe because they directly reference the koran and the teachings of islamic scholars? call me crazy i know.




Oh look - I found out about another site on the web that also promotes itself as having a lot of 'factual' stuff.

Its called 'www.jewwatch.com'  - what a coincidencentally similar sort of name to the site you referred us to.  It promotes itself as The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Jewish History" and as “a Not-For-Profit Library for private study, scholarship, or research.”.

I'm sure it will have lots of direct references to the Hebrew Bible showing how they're trying to take over and destroy the world as well.   Seems like everyone's up to it. 

Have a read of what wikiepedia has to say about Jew Watch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_Watch 

(for those that can't be bothered following the wikipedia link here is an excerpt from the first paragraph:

_Jew Watch is a controversial website that describes itself as “The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Jewish History" and as “a Not-For-Profit Library for private study, scholarship, or research.” *The site is widely categorized as an antisemitic hate site[1].*_


----------



## cuttlefish (15 January 2009)

Here's an excerpt from what wikipedia has to say about the Jihad Watch web site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch#Criticism

"_The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), called Jihad Watch an "Internet hate site" and claimed it is "notorious for its depiction of Islam as an inherently violent faith that is a threat to world peace." [12] *Guardian writer Brian Whitaker describes Jihad Watch as a "notoriously Islamophobic website"*,[13] while other critics such as Dinesh D'Souza,[14] Karen Armstrong,[15] and Cathy Young,[16] *point to what they see as deliberate mischaracterizations of Islam and Muslims by Spencer as inherently violent and therefore prone to terrorism.* Various attempts to block the site based on allegations of "hate speech" have been mostly unsuccessful.[17][18] In response to criticism, Spencer states that he vehemently rejects the "Islamophobe" label, "which is only a tool used by Islamic apologists to silence criticism".[19]_"

Hardly the first place I would go looking at for unbiased information on the Islamic religion.


----------



## rederob (15 January 2009)

disarray said:


> or you could even learn to differentiate between when a person is giving a personal opinion or when they are presenting (what they believe to be) facts. hint: one of them usually provides outside references, the other doesn't.



I guess I am used to personal opinions having a basis in fact, or accepted understandings - religious "beliefs" aside.
Perhaps you can tell us which of your opinions should be ignored as they have no reasonable basis.


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2009)

Please disregard my previous post, if anyone saw it. It was supposed to be a PM.

Humble apologies.


----------



## disarray (15 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Oh look - I found out about another site on the web that also promotes itself as having a lot of 'factual' stuff.
> 
> Its called 'www.jewwatch.com'  - what a coincidencentally similar sort of name to the site you referred us to.  It promotes itself as The Internet's Largest Scholarly Collection of Articles on Jewish History" and as “a Not-For-Profit Library for private study, scholarship, or research.”.




well some of it may very well be factual. i know first hand that a one time jewish girlfriend made it perfectly clear she was only going to marry a jew and a jew only. and maybe there are references in jewish religious texts that contain passages about treating goyim as second class citizens. and shock horror! jews have committed atrocities throughout the ages! (i love the one where they tricked some city into getting circumcised and then butchered the male populace while they were recovering)

so what's your point? i never said jews were angels did i? nice straw man you built up there though. it is good that you brought this to my attention though because it further reinforces my point that there are deep religious aspects to the current conflict which both sides possess, which are offensive to our western cultural ideals and so are open to criticism.

now what you can do, if you have a point to make about the jews, is gather your facts, reference them, and make your point with factual backing. then people can debate THE POINTS and THE FACTS on their merits!

or you can let wikipedia form your opinions for you because it all seems like far too much effort for you to debate the points or refute the facts that have been presented. and a big LOL to the criticism from CAIR, there is a truly respectable organisation if ever i saw one 



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> I guess I am used to personal opinions having a basis in fact, or accepted understandings - religious "beliefs" aside.




accepted by who? you see to me FACT in this case (of criticising islam) is the actual written words and recorded historical actions of the prophet mohammed, the koran and the teaching of islamic scholars. if you have different facts or a different accepted understanding, then state it.



> Perhaps you can tell us which of your opinions should be ignored as they have no reasonable basis.




perhaps you can figure that out for yourself, or you can go join cuttlefish on wikipedia and let that form your opinion for you.


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2009)

disarray,

Have you read the Bible? The whole enchilada?

It wasn't that long ago that Christian European society lived with similar absurd bloodlust and brutality as do the radical Islamists. I'm sure we could dig up a modern example somewhere in the world if we look hard enough.

All these religions contain deep contradictions. Christianity and Judaism is no different in this regard. Yes there are radical elements within Islam, I have also seen the other side, where they just want to live life, love their children, make some money and enjoy life... just like us.

While the radicals can go and rot in hell as far as I'm concerned, the average Muslim is a very friendly chap(ess). As long as (s)he knows you don't automatically hate them, they make fine friends.


----------



## mayk (15 January 2009)

A little off topic, but still interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/15/david-miliband-war-terror


> 'War on terror' was wrong
> The phrase gives a false idea of a unified global enemy, and encourages a primarily military reply






> The call for a "war on terror" was a call to arms, an attempt to build solidarity for a fight against a single shared enemy. But the foundation for solidarity between peoples and nations should be based not on who we are against, but on the idea of who we are and the values we share. Terrorists succeed when they render countries fearful and vindictive; when they sow division and animosity; when they force countries to respond with violence and repression. The best response is to refuse to be cowed.




I agree with what he is saying. New thinking and strategy, with long term objectives is needed. Interesting comments too.


----------



## rowie (15 January 2009)

DISARRAY - So this is where you get your information from? Jihad watch - What a joke, it truly is laughable that you prescribe to rubbish sites like that and believe it as the truth. Insult to your intelligence mate, although not sure how intelligent you really are if your gullible enough to fall for that crap... My advice, take some time to sift through the garbage and get a balanced understanding of the religion from sources that dont have hidden agendas to further their fanatical causes.


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2009)

mayk said:


> An illustration:





Thanks mayk, Real Humans there.


----------



## rederob (16 January 2009)

So, your facts in this case are:







disarray said:


> accepted by who? you see to me FACT in this case (of criticising islam) is the actual written words and recorded historical actions of the prophet mohammed, the koran and the teaching of islamic scholars. if you have different facts or a different accepted understanding, then state it.



And your personal opinion includes:


disarray said:


> there is no "collective destiny" for jews or muslims, their entire faith revolves around being seperate, exclusive and superior.
> 
> there is no solution.



I now have no difficulty in seeing your logic.
If ever there was a justification for Israel's actions, you nailed it.


----------



## disarray (16 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> disarray,
> 
> Have you read the Bible? The whole enchilada?




yep, it's an interesting history (with a dash of fairytale)



> It wasn't that long ago that Christian European society lived with similar absurd bloodlust and brutality as do the radical Islamists. I'm sure we could dig up a modern example somewhere in the world if we look hard enough.




i never said christianity had a spotless history either. what i did say however was islam, by its very nature, is a violent and oppressive philosophy with clearly stated aims and methods of warfare against ALL non-believers. this is a danger to civilised society. it is no coincidence that areas with large muslim populations / borders with muslim nations suffer endless terror and murder at the hands of the followers of the religion of peace.

as far as modern christian massacres, there are the abortion clinic bombings in the states, and globally there is conflict in indonesia between the christians and ... guess who ... you won't believe it ... the muslims. there is also christian / muslim conflict in the philippines, and christian / muslim conflict in sudan and various parts of africa. there's also hindu / muslim conflict in india, buddhist / muslim conflict in thailand, more christian / muslim conflict in the balkans. are you sensing a pattern here?



> All these religions contain deep contradictions. Christianity and Judaism is no different in this regard. Yes there are radical elements within Islam, I have also seen the other side, where they just want to live life, love their children, make some money and enjoy life... just like us.




for sure, but the point i am making again is THERE IS NO MODERATE ISLAM. moderate muslims sure, but the core philosophy of islam espouses murder and subjugation. islam itself means "submission" and they take that seriously. muttering platitudes about "its only a small number of extremists" is to totally overlook the fundamental principles of the religion as laid out by mohammed in the koran. you may notice the koran becomes more bloodthirsty as mohammed grows in power.



> While the radicals can go and rot in hell as far as I'm concerned, the average Muslim is a very friendly chap(ess). As long as (s)he knows you don't automatically hate them, they make fine friends.




i'm sure they do, but once again the koran SPECIFICALLY STATES -



> 5.51: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.






> 3.118: O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand






> 3.28: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.




now what we need to ask of our muslim "friends", and guard against, is when push comes to shove, will muslims in our lands follow our western systems or follow the explicit teachings of the koran? we have a right to ask these questions, while being aware of the islamic principle of al taqiyyah (ie. lying to infidels).

judging by the state of england (which the CIA has described as an "islamic cesspool" and where imams routinely agitate for the implementation of sharia law and outright destruction of the west), the obscene wave of muslim rape throughout the western world (go google rape stats in sweden) and the fact that there are 751 areas in france that are no longer under french control, but instead practice sharia law where honour killings, polygamy and murders for apostasy are commonplace, then we should be asking who are these people and what do they stand for? what is their motivation? what does their philosophy preach?

instead people just mouth the usual "small minority, religion of peace" platitudes and bury their heads in the sand, hoping that "multiculturalism" will save the day. it won't, and the west needs to grow a pair and stand up for our values instead of bending over to accommodate people who follow an utterly intolerant philosophy.

and rowie, i've done plenty of reading thanks and formed my own opinion. now go ahead and refute the points about mohammed being a psycho and the koran having numerous entries regarding the islamic requirement to spread jihad and take over the world (as well as endless youtube videos of imams spouting the same) or take your tears somewhere else. or better still, show me the "nice" parts of the koran where mohammed isn't butchering jews, raiding caravans, raping slaves, fking children or exhorting his followers to go and commit acts of depravity. do this, and i'll show you the bits i just mentioned and then we can nut out the contradiction.


----------



## disarray (16 January 2009)

rederob said:


> I now have no difficulty in seeing your logic.
> If ever there was a justification for Israel's actions, you nailed it.




i'm saying i don't see jews and muslims getting along because of their religious differences and the bad history between them. that is my personal opinion based on my understanding of things. clear enough for you?


----------



## rowie (16 January 2009)

disarray said:


> yep, it's an interesting history (with a dash of fairytale)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The quotes you provided are not from the koran Einstien!! They are man made hadiths that were invented by scholars to suit theyre agendas 300 years after the death of Muhammad. Like I said before, educate yourself from a balanced view of the religion before making up garbage here. Clearly you are providing false and misleading information.


----------



## rowie (16 January 2009)

Dissarray - Heres a direct quote from the koran: 

Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who (1) believe in GOD and (2) believe in the Last Day, and (3) lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.


----------



## mayk (16 January 2009)

rowie said:


> The quotes you provided are not from the koran Einstien!! They are man made hadiths that were invented by scholars to suit theyre agendas 300 years after the death of Muhammad. Like I said before, educate yourself from a balanced view of the religion before making up garbage here. Clearly you are providing false and misleading information.




Rowie, these quotes are from Koran.
First quote reference: 
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/005.qmt.html
The first reference:


> YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.
> PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.
> SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.




The Second reference:



> YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom.
> PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not for intimates others than your own folk, who would spare no pains to ruin you; they love to hamper you. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their mouths, but that which their breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you the revelations if ye will understand.
> SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.



Third reference:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/003.qmt.html


> YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
> PICKTHAL: Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.
> SHAKIR: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.


----------



## rowie (16 January 2009)

Disarray, I suggest you read the Koran to get a real understanding of this religion. Rather than reading crap from websites, why dont you go straight to the source? It wont kill you, the only harm is expansion of your knowledge and mind. Get it straight from the source.


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2009)

disarray,

By the same token, there is no moderate Christianity or Judaism then either, only moderate Christians and Jews.

As regards to the UK. There are problem areas that have become radicalized, mostly in economically deprived areas where they also endure the most racism/religious discrimination. The UK specializes in deprivation and it's not just Muslims that are a problem here. We also have the white "chav" underclass that actually cause more problems than the Muslims.... and are more hated by middle class white folks than Muslims are.

But they're indigenous, so it is reported differently.

Let's put it this way. If I see a group of Muslims walking toward me, I walk straight through the middle of them without fear. If I see a group of chavs, I'll avoid them. They are are just gratuitously violent... ####ing feral.

To put it bluntly, there is a problem with radical elements of Islam, but:

1/ It is grossly overstated by sites such as the one you mention.
2/ The radicalization is often initiated and perpetuated because of institutional (government) actions in Islamic countries... i.e. the west has been ####ing around in the ME because of oil, Israel etc for decades.
3/ the lunatic extreme left jobsworths cowtow to them, emboldening them to be ever more demanding.

In other words, we have to apportion blame properly and examine our own complicity in the problem of radical Islam, if only to improve the situation. One the one hand, butt out of their affairs in their own countries, but on the other, be much sterner with them in ours.


----------



## mayk (16 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Dissarray - Heres a direct quote from the koran:
> 
> Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who (1) believe in GOD and (2) believe in the Last Day, and (3) lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.




Just to give it a proper reference.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/005.qmt.html
005.069


> YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
> PICKTHAL: Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
> SHAKIR: Surely those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians whoever believes in Allah and the last day and does good-- they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.




I love the work of the university students when they provide modern tools to make fact validation simple and easy.


----------



## cuttlefish (16 January 2009)

disarray said:


> now what you can do, if you have a point to make about the jews, is gather your facts, reference them, and make your point with factual backing. then people can debate THE POINTS and THE FACTS on their merits!




Please be careful not to put words into my mouth.  My post had nothing to do with making any kind of point about Judaism.  I thought my point was obvious - both sites are similar in name and style, and both sites are full of paranoid hate mongering rubbish.   

I was hoping you would see the similarity in the name, style and content and realise how ridiculous it was to refer us to the jihad watch site for 'facts'  about Islam.  I wouldn't believe anything I read on that site.

I was also hoping it might open your eyes up to the fact that this sort of rubbish can be peddled about any religion - i.e. I was hoping it might help you see the site you referred us to for what it is.

Clearly that isn't the case and instead you've misinterpreted it as me trying to make some point about Judaism .


----------



## rederob (16 January 2009)

disarray said:


> i'm saying i don't see jews and muslims getting along because of their religious differences and the bad history between them. that is my personal opinion based on my understanding of things. clear enough for you?



You were categorical in saying they had no "collective destiny", and that there was no solution to the present situation.
Yet their coexistence for hundreds of years has been no more difficult than that of countless other ethnic and religious mergings.  Even today 15% of the Israeli population is of the Muslim faith. And the problems encountered within Israel are generally due to radical or terrorist acts, typically from across the border, so to speak.

Changing tack slightly, I have listened carefully to the consummately crafted media commentary of Mark Regev, and seen him latterly getting a bit flustered when interviewed.  He is careful to add enough confusion to his replies so that he isn't hoist on his own petard. 
For example, in commenting on the "unfortunate" bombing of a UN facility where hundreds of civilian Gazans were seeking safety, Regev effectively stated that gunmen had been seen running into that very same facility.  He allowed *us *to imply that this was good enough reason for the Israelis to "hit" the facility.  What he dare not say or suggest in the same interview was that Israel was doing everything it could to avoid civilian casualties.  And he achieved this by continuing the beat up of gunmen using Gazans as civilian shields.
If you want a good understanding of what Israel is up to in the Gazan conflict, listen carefully for what Regev does *not *say.


----------



## rowie (16 January 2009)

rederob said:


> You were categorical in saying they had no "collective destiny", and that there was no solution to the present situation.
> Yet their coexistence for hundreds of years has been no more difficult than that of countless other ethnic and religious mergings.  Even today 15% of the Israeli population is of the Muslim faith. And the problems encountered within Israel are generally due to radical or terrorist acts, typically from across the border, so to speak.
> 
> Changing tack slightly, I have listened carefully to the consummately crafted media commentary of Mark Regev, and seen him latterly getting a bit flustered when interviewed.  He is careful to add enough confusion to his replies so that he isn't hoist on his own petard.
> ...




Well put. Indeed the beat up of Palestinian gunmen using Gazan children as human shields is clearly a tested propoganda tool used by the Israeli political/military to justify attacks on unarmed civilians. Anyone with half a brain would easily understand that children are probably the worst shields to use against Israel seeing as how over 300 already have been killed in this brutal attack and seeing as how they the military is not holding back on its targets. If the UN HQ can come under fire, anything is fair game, with or without children it appears. This is clear, yet people still claim they are being used as shields. Not too effective these shields at all.


----------



## Happy (16 January 2009)

> Originally Posted by rederob
> 
> For example, in commenting on the "unfortunate" bombing of a UN facility where hundreds of civilian Gazans were seeking safety, Regev effectively stated that gunmen had been seen running into that very same facility. He allowed us to imply that this was good enough reason for the Israelis to "hit" the facility.




It could be also argued, that gunmen if worried about safety of children and civilians should not look for shelter in the same place that innocent children and civilians were hiding.





rowie said:


> Well put. Indeed the beat up of Palestinian gunmen using Gazan children as human shields is clearly a tested propoganda tool used by the Israeli political/military to justify attacks on unarmed civilians. Anyone with half a brain would easily understand that children are probably the worst shields to use against Israel seeing as how over 300 already have been killed in this brutal attack and seeing as how they the military is not holding back on its targets. If the UN HQ can come under fire, anything is fair game, with or without children it appears. This is clear, yet people still claim they are being used as shields. Not too effective these shields at all.





Gunmen have also choice where to hide, if they know by now that they are target magnet.
Should they be so concerned for safety of children and civilians they - at this stage of war - they should know by now where to hide.

This is only speculation on who should do what, if cares.


----------



## GumbyLearner (16 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Perhaps it's just me but it's the glazed over eyes of the mini-academics who wet themselves when he speaks that bug me. Sort of the same feeling I get when Oprah throws cars at the audience.




That was hilarious Lucas. ROFL


----------



## lucky milo (16 January 2009)

Glen48 said:


> This is some thing we have to get use to it will only stop once religion is banned.
> Its been going on for thousands of years and will continue to do so long after we have passed on.




It's not always about Religion, its just some twisted power hungry politicians that USE religion so they can get widespread support from the majority ignorant public. If religion wasn't in the picture they would still want their own state, its more about land that Israel took away...and that can have vengeance which lasts for centuries.


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2009)

A few journalists are now being allowed restricted access to Gaza. FWIW here is the first report from the UK contingent.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5526922.ece


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2009)

Here is an article in a sincere attempt to balance the issues, does a pretty good job IMO, but may ignore a great swaithe of history.

Israel's cause is just but some of its tactics are self-defeating


----------



## doctorj (16 January 2009)

*



			Jewish MP says Israeli soldiers are like Nazis
		
Click to expand...


*


> A Jewish MP has compared Israeli troops in Gaza to the Nazis who forced his family to flee Poland.
> 
> Sir Gerald Kaufman said the Israeli government was 'ruthlessly and cynically' exploiting the guilt over the Holocaust as justification for the assault on Gaza.
> 
> 'My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town... a German soldier shot her dead in her bed,' he told MPs. 'My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza.'



http://www.metro.co.uk/news/world/a...n_article_id=483107&in_page_id=64&in_a_source=


----------



## rederob (17 January 2009)

> *UN seeks Israel Gaza school hit probe*
> January 17, 2009 - 9:24PM
> United Nations officials on Saturday demanded an investigation into a new Israeli strike on a UN-run school in Gaza, which killed a woman and a child in the fourth such attack during its war on Hamas.
> 
> ...



Israel showed in their 2006 war on Lebanon that UN posts were not safe, with a direct hit on the unmistakable UNIFIL patrol base.
Israel undertakes to "investigate" these instances, and always "regrets" the loss of life.
Ir reality it's a deliberate campaign they embark on and they care not who gets in their way.
If they did "care" there would have only been one "mistake" in hitting an UNRWA school, not four.


----------



## Macquack (18 January 2009)

US Congressman Dr Ron Paul says that "We (USA) should be on neither side".

Furthermore, Ron Paul states "The Palestinians are virtually in like a *concentration camp*. They have a few small missiles, but it is so minor compared to the firepower of Israel who has nuclear weapons. And they can turn off all the food and all the water and what ever they want to the people in Palestine."


----------



## mayk (18 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Israel showed in their 2006 war on Lebanon that UN posts were not safe, with a direct hit on the unmistakable UNIFIL patrol base.
> Israel undertakes to "investigate" these instances, and always "regrets" the loss of life.
> Ir reality it's a deliberate campaign they embark on and they care not who gets in their way.
> If they did "care" there would have only been one "mistake" in hitting an UNRWA school, not four.




The death of a human life is regrettable in any man-made disaster. I generally feel more sorry for the people who are wounded and have to suffer rest of their lives. Amputated, blinded and burned, without any reason (in this case most of them children). 

It is a general observation, in the same vain, I feel sorry for the wounded American/Australian soldiers. Because they are always forgotten heroes. People are more interested in counting and comparing the dead numbers. Not counting the injured and the impact it will have on their lives. 

In retrospect, this decade (finger crossed), is turning out to be a disastrous start to this century/millennium ( 9/11,Afghanistan,Iraq,Lebanon-Israel,Gaza, Georgia-Russia,  Credit crunch - World wide Recession). I wish the biggest news of this decade was a sex-scandal like the 90's (well at least we are on to a good start with a democrat in the white house).


----------



## haunting (18 January 2009)

Worth a read.


----------



## Happy (19 January 2009)

> From ABC, 19 Jan. 09
> GAZA WAR 'GREAT VICTORY' FOR PALESTINIANS: HANIYA
> 
> Senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniya said the Gaza war with Israel amounted to a "great victory" for the Palestinians, in a televised speech.
> ...




"great victory" - Fantastic result against such difficulties.


----------



## nick2fish (19 January 2009)

Well if your leaders can be that delusional, there is not much hope for any positive future prospects for the country and its people, not based on reality anyway.... and the great one will desend from the heavens and wave his magic wand........


----------



## disarray (19 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Disarray, I suggest you read the Koran to get a real understanding of this religion. Rather than reading crap from websites, why dont you go straight to the source? It wont kill you, the only harm is expansion of your knowledge and mind. Get it straight from the source.




look there's countless videos and articles and posts out there from islamic religious leaders calling for jihad and the destruction of the west, while quoting koranic scripture and shouting out allah ackbar. if you are so offended by negative interpretations of islam then you should be getting upset at the jihadis and muslim leaders who cause it rather than westerners who object to it. i've posted plenty of links outlining why i believe what i do so either show me where these negative interpretations are wrong or get over it.



> Koran Chapter 8 - Al-Anfal - Spoils of War / Booty
> 
> 008.012 YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
> 
> ...




better not contend against allah then hey? straight from the source enough for you? 

or how about chapter 23?



> 023.001 YUSUFALI: The believers must (eventually) win through,-
> 
> 023.002 YUSUFALI: Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
> 
> ...




this is a good one. be humble and chaste, unless your nailing your wife. or your slaves. enlightened!

further to that point, i also object to the verses in the koran that tell me what to eat and how to pray, the same as i object to any other religion that tells me how to live my life.



			
				WayneL said:
			
		

> By the same token, there is no moderate Christianity or Judaism then either, only moderate Christians and Jews.




nowhere in any of my posts have i said that christianity or judaism are better / less violent / more moderate than islam, yet i am constantly refuted with the claims "well what about christianity etc". that is not the measure by which we should judge islam - we are a secular and democratic state, we hold and enforce these ideals, and these are the ideals we should compare islam to. 



			
				WayneL said:
			
		

> In other words, we have to apportion blame properly and examine our own complicity in the problem of radical Islam, if only to improve the situation. One the one hand, butt out of their affairs in their own countries, but on the other, be much sterner with them in ours.




/agree. i don't agree with a lot of US foreign policy either. just because i think islam is barbaric and oppressive doesn't make me a christian or a george bush supporter.



			
				cuttlefish said:
			
		

> I was hoping you would see the similarity in the name, style and content and realise how ridiculous it was to refer us to the jihad watch site for 'facts' about Islam. I wouldn't believe anything I read on that site.




see, this is what i don't get. you just go "this site is rubbish" and reject out of hand the facts they presented, but you don't make any attempt to refute the claims or say why they are wrong. you just don't like the title and say "oh its got a crappy name, the guy must be a fascist, there couldn't possibly be any truth in the site whatsoever". and here you are accusing me of closed mindedness and ignorance while you sit there and reject outright well referenced and reasoned articles because you don't like the message. hypocrisy much?



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> You were categorical in saying they had no "collective destiny", and that there was no solution to the present situation.
> Yet their coexistence for hundreds of years has been no more difficult than that of countless other ethnic and religious mergings. Even today 15% of the Israeli population is of the Muslim faith. And the problems encountered within Israel are generally due to radical or terrorist acts, typically from across the border, so to speak.




well that's my opinion, you have yours. i hold my opinion because i feel humanity is entering a very bearish phase, where population pressures and resource depletion (especially water) are going to cause a great deal of conflict in that area, and the already substantial divisions along race, culture and religion are going to become more pronounced and will form the battlelines in the conflict to come. so to each their own, but if you have a working crystal ball feel free to tell me how its all going to unfold (and drop in a stock tip while you're at it)

i also read an interesting article that a possible israeli "final solution" is to concentrate the palestinians into a small area (achieved), make life difficult for them, then open a corridor for them to piss off out of gaza and head into jordan or egypt or something freeing up the land for the israelis to move in. seems plausible.

/walloftext


----------



## gordon2007 (19 January 2009)

I rather like that post disarray!


----------



## Macquack (19 January 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> I rather like that post disarray!




I rather dont like that post, disarray!

disarray gets most of his material from the *ISLAM TO REDNECK* Translation Dictionary.


----------



## mayk (19 January 2009)

disarray said:


> i also read an interesting article that a possible israeli "final solution" is to concentrate the palestinians into a small area (achieved), make life difficult for them, then open a corridor for them to piss off out of gaza and head into jordan or egypt or something freeing up the land for the israelis to move in. seems plausible.




Can you elaborate this "plausible" conclusion in the light of, Torah, Bible, Koran, or simple common sense, or UN resolutions or Atheist Philosophy.


----------



## rederob (19 January 2009)

disarray said:


> well that's my opinion, you have yours. i hold my opinion because i feel humanity is entering a very bearish phase, where population pressures and resource depletion (especially water) are going to cause a great deal of conflict in that area, and the already substantial divisions along race, culture and religion are going to become more pronounced and will form the battlelines in the conflict to come. so to each their own, but if you have a working crystal ball feel free to tell me how its all going to unfold (and drop in a stock tip while you're at it)



The Gazans entered a "bearish phase" some 18 months ago when Israel commenced its blockade. The norm in Gaza is no electricity, no running water, no food, no employment.  And if you are lucky enough to be hospitalised don't count on medication, or surgery (the power might not be on).
I may have an opinion on this issue, but it's almost irrelevant given the dire conditions the Gazans have endured. I find it peculiar that Israel has not learned from its own past.


----------



## rederob (19 January 2009)

Oh, I forgot my stock tip.
I have none.
That's because I won't be re-entering the market for at least another 6 months.  Indeed, there is every chance I will keep my money in the bank well into 2010.
Apologies for being off topic, but I am responding in disarray.


----------



## disarray (19 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> I rather dont like that post, disarray!
> 
> disarray gets most of his material from the *ISLAM TO REDNECK* Translation Dictionary.




LOL you're clutching at straws there man. actually my last post was referenced from mayk's link he used to confirm my statement about various statements in the koran. it's a very good link and i've been going through brushing up on my koranic scripture. maybe you should do the same? or would you rather i lent you a race card to play to save you the bother of having to do some research?



			
				mayk said:
			
		

> Can you elaborate this "plausible" conclusion in the light of, Torah, Bible, Koran, or simple common sense, or UN resolutions or Atheist Philosophy.




how about i just give you the link? The Invasion of Gaza : "Operation Cast Lead"

globalresearch.ca is a decidedly left leaning think tank with copious amounts of pro-palestinian / anti-israeli articles, which i also enjoy reading for its economic essays and various conspiracy theories about the manipulation of the global economy and the coming financial armageddon. reading information from both left and right wing sites? inconceivable!

that's ok though, you can still use the "you just get your news from FOX" line if it makes you happy. thanks for the koranic scripture link by the way, it is both helpful and enlightening! here's another one to share with you (redneck translation included!)



> Koran Chapter 23 - Al-AhZab - The Clans, The Coalition, The Combined Forces
> 
> 033.024 YUSUFALI: That Allah may reward the men of Truth for their Truth, and punish the Hypocrites if that be His Will, or turn to them in Mercy: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
> 
> ...




i think there's something in that for all of us 



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> The Gazans entered a "bearish phase" some 18 months ago when Israel commenced its blockade. The norm in Gaza is no electricity, no running water, no food, no employment. And if you are lucky enough to be hospitalised don't count on medication, or surgery (the power might not be on).




sounds like a great deal of the world. lets get outraged about that too! or do you need rocket launchers and an effective propaganda department to get media attention and your sympathy?

maybe some reasonable discourse and a dash of cultural and religious equivalence will save the day! because we all know how easily people forget past injustices and are willing to put the past behind them and work together to forge a peacful and prosperous future.

/idealism



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> I may have an opinion on this issue, but it's almost irrelevant given the dire conditions the Gazans have endured.




a man of conviction i see.



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> Apologies for being off topic, but I am responding in disarray




witty, you made a play on my name. keep the quality coming.


----------



## rederob (19 January 2009)

disarray said:


> sounds like a great deal of the world. lets get outraged about that too! or do you need rocket launchers and an effective propaganda department to get media attention and your sympathy?



I don't see much of the world denied access to water, power and food, concurrently. But who here has been worried about that denial of human rights?
In a matter of years the Gazans killed a few dozen innocent Israeli people with their pathetic, misguided weapons.  In a mater of weeks the Israelis multiplied that kill count of civilians a hundred times over.
One doesn't need a propaganda department to work out why the Palestinians are getting some favourable media attention, despite their recalcitrance.
Irrespective of the military outcome, Palestinian resolve against Israel has been galvanised many times over.
Israel has no concern over winning hearts and minds.
They want to teach a lesson.
Well, they taught it.
Their problem now is working out what constitutes a pass.


----------



## mayk (20 January 2009)

disarray said:


> i think there's something in that for all of us




So you are justifying your "plausible " conclusion on Koran. And you are calling other people Hypocrite .

P.S. You are welcome for the link, nothing like a good verifiable source.


----------



## mayk (20 January 2009)

UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza


----------



## disarray (20 January 2009)

rederob said:


> I don't see much of the world denied access to water, power and food, concurrently






> According to UNICEF, 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”




maybe they need better youtube access?



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> But who here has been worried about that denial of human rights?




indeed



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> In a matter of years the Gazans killed a few dozen innocent Israeli people with their pathetic, misguided weapons.  In a mater of weeks the Israelis multiplied that kill count of civilians a hundred times over




right. the palestinians have been killing israelis for YEARS. israel has been killing palestinians for WEEKS. it's not like anyone has a high moral ground though.



> One doesn't need a propaganda department to work out why the Palestinians are getting some favourable media attention, despite their recalcitrance.




media bias perhaps? clever media manipulation? plenty of opinion on both sides of that argument to trawl through should you be so inclined. i'm not but you go knock yourself out.



> Israel has no concern over winning hearts and minds.




now this is just silly. to say that israel is happy just to rampage through gaza and massacre kids and not give a stuff about what the rest of the world thinks is deluded. they are subject to international pressure, dependent upon foreign trade and US$ like anyone else. 



			
				mayk said:
			
		

> So you are justifying your "plausible " conclusion on Koran. And you are calling other people Hypocrite




what are you talking about? why would israel invade gaza based on koranic teaching 

i think the article about "operation cast lead" is plausible because i think the israelis probably do want the palestinians to piss off out of gaza. access to land, resources, coastline and shifting out some neighbours they don't get along with makes more sense to me than invading because of the ramblings of a madman in some dark ages holy book.


----------



## wayneL (20 January 2009)

> right. the palestinians have been killing israelis for YEARS. *israel has been killing palestinians for WEEKS*. it's not like anyone has a high moral ground though.



errrrr... you might want to reconsider that statement in light of the facts.

Aquick search from google 2001 archives http://news.google.co.uk/archivesea...=2001&as_hdate=2001&lnav=d4&hdrange=2002,2008

...and it goes back a bit further than that as well.


----------



## disarray (20 January 2009)

... in this current phase of a long and drawn out conflict. hamas has been relentlessly firing rockets into israel for years prior to the recent invasion, which is partly responsible for the current actions.

anyway the killing has been going on both sides for a long time now, as i've stated, no one has a high moral ground. i take the correction.

armed palestinian terrorists use kids as human shields. 



and pics before bed ... firing amongst civilians


----------



## Sean K (20 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> ...and it goes back a bit further than that as well.



At least as far as Deuteronomy, Ch 20.17:

thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee


----------



## GumbyLearner (20 January 2009)

It is a real shame that children are used as shields. Its also a real shame when anyone abuses small children in wartime or peace. Gutless stuff indeed!


----------



## wayneL (20 January 2009)

disarray said:


> armed palestinian terrorists use kids as human shields.
> 
> and pics before bed ... firing amongst civilians



LOL

I don't disbelieve nor believe they are using children as shields, but that top photo is so obviously photoshopped, it's laughable.

The other photo and Utube are hardly conclusive or even evidence quality. 

Again I stress that I don't disbelieve it, but please, if you are going to offer evidence, at least make it credible.


----------



## nick2fish (20 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> LOL
> 
> I don't disbelieve nor believe they are using children as shields, but that top photo is so obviously photoshopped, it's laughable.
> 
> ...




Regardless of the dubious conclusive nature of U Tube video, the fact remains that Hamas are using their citizens as sacrificial pawns to achieve their goals. Normal responsible people would think twice about consequences of their actions, even animals weight up the potential for serious injury before engagement.

"On the ground, as Hamas congratulated the Palestinians on "victory" from mosque loudspeakers, Gaza residents cautiously ventured out into the streets to inspect the rubble that was once their homes" (Reuters)

The Darwin Evolution Theory working in reverse


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Regardless of the dubious conclusive nature of U Tube video, the fact remains that Hamas are using their citizens as sacrificial pawns to achieve their goals. Normal responsible people would think twice about consequences of their actions, even animals weight up the potential for serious injury before engagement.
> 
> "On the ground, as Hamas congratulated the Palestinians on "victory" from mosque loudspeakers, Gaza residents cautiously ventured out into the streets to inspect the rubble that was once their homes" (Reuters)
> 
> The Darwin Evolution Theory working in reverse




Yet again, never ceases to amaze me how the argument is turned on its head. You have a 4th strongest military in the world randomly firing into a civilian population with pockets of resistance and it is the pockets of resistance that are blamed for the killings. Can you possibly consider that Israel has caused this destruction? Or is that too far fetched for you? 
Evolution theory is one of fight and struggle for survival. Kill or be killed. 

Your logic and reasoning is working in reverse.


----------



## disarray (20 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> LOL
> 
> I don't disbelieve nor believe they are using children as shields, but that top photo is so obviously photoshopped, it's laughable.
> 
> ...




lol, that's some impressive photoshop picking skills. what you see is called the mogadishu sniper position, so named because of the tactic of fighters in somalia to fire from behind women and children. the kid stands there in front of the rocket launcher with his legs apart so the brave jihadi can fire through his legs while the young guy in front can catch any bullets from snipers or return fire.

either way people can make up their own minds as to the authenticity and the meaning of the images.

obvious photoshop huh?


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

Israel has proved time and time again that everyone in Gaza is fair game, including children. This crap about children as human shields is simply that - crap. Hamas would at the very least know by now that this tactic simply does not work in the face of an army willing to kill just about anyone. There is no logic in this.


----------



## noirua (20 January 2009)

Israel, of course, planned to pull out as the President Elect was about to be voted in. Quiet days ahead, until the vanquished reposition and gradually rearm.


----------



## nick2fish (20 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Yet again, never ceases to amaze me how the argument is turned on its head. You have a 4th strongest military in the world randomly firing into a civilian population with pockets of resistance and it is the pockets of resistance that are blamed for the killings. Can you possibly consider that Israel has caused this destruction? Or is that too far fetched for you?
> Evolution theory is one of fight and struggle for survival. Kill or be killed.
> 
> Your logic and reasoning is working in reverse.




You are wrong Rowie (again imo) 
You really shouldn't mention logic, because it is totally illogical to fire rockets at a superpower and not expect retaliation.

It is to me totally illogical to put your own citizens and infrastructure at risk by your own actions

To me that is not the path of an evolved society


Evolution is a fairly complex subject and open to many interpretations but the kill or be killed idea is really simplistic slant on species survival

Example, if the cheetah species was to develop a trait where as every time it saw a lion they would attack as opposed to hide or flight what would be the long term outlook for the cheetah species, Rowie?

Palestine was not occupied (though it is now) 
The pockets of "resistance" that you mention is the governing body of the Palestine people, hardly a pocket.


I am not saying that Israel is right, I am saying that Hamas is Wrong....
Very Wrong


----------



## The Muffin Man (20 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Israel has proved time and time again that everyone in Gaza is fair game, including children. This crap about children as human shields is simply that - crap. Hamas would at the very least know by now that this tactic simply does not work in the face of an army willing to kill just about anyone. *There is no logic in this*.




Just the same as there is no logic in the IDF firing randomly and without reason or cause into what would otherwise be civilian targets, but some choose to ignore this.

Both sides have been killing each other for ages. No one side has any kind of moral high ground and to argue otherwise is moronic, and partly the reason why the conflict continues to this day.


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> You are wrong Rowie (again imo)
> You really shouldn't mention logic, because it is totally illogical to fire rockets at a superpower and not expect retaliation.
> 
> It is to me totally illogical to put your own citizens and infrastructure at risk by your own actions
> ...




Well, it is my opinion that doing absolutely nothing in the face of aggression and brutality is a bigger threat to your existence than taking action. Being absolutely passive and accepting ones fate would lead to israels ultimate objective of leaving palestinians destitute and utterly stateless, to languish in refugee camps near the borders of egypt, jordan etc. These countries do not even want this burden to start with. So the palestinian fight is one very much of survival, not as you say, a suicidal fight. They have lived through countless assaults on theyre population, even during supposed cease fires palestinians are killed on a daily basis. Embargos applied, infrastructure destroyed not because of theyre resistance but simply because they exist! So to go back to your cheetah example, if the lions only interest was in your total ejection from the wherever they roam to say a zoo, do you not think that it is in the best interest of the cheetah to resist, for not resisting would ultimately lead to total destitution and statelessness?  

And lets not talk about an evolved society, for evolved societies dont drop heavy duty bombs and chemicals on a destitute population. And evolved societies would immediately object at such actions and not try to make excuses for these actions. We in the west are such evolved societies arent we???


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> Just the same as there is no logic in the IDF firing randomly and without reason or cause into what would otherwise be civilian targets, but some choose to ignore this.
> 
> Both sides have been killing each other for ages. No one side has any kind of moral high ground and to argue otherwise is moronic, and partly the reason why the conflict continues to this day.




Hello, but that is exactly what they have been doing! Havent you been watching the news???@!!!


----------



## nick2fish (20 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Well, it is my opinion that doing absolutely nothing in the face of aggression and brutality is a bigger threat to your existence than taking action. Being absolutely passive and accepting ones fate would lead to israels ultimate objective of leaving palestinians destitute and utterly stateless, to languish in refugee camps near the borders of egypt, jordan etc. These countries do not even want this burden to start with. So the Palestinian fight is one very much of survival, not as you say, a suicidal fight. They have lived through countless assaults on they're population, even during supposed cease fires Palestinians are killed on a daily basis. Embargos applied, infrastructure destroyed not because of theyre resistance but simply because they exist! So to go back to your cheetah example, if the lions only interest was in your total ejection from the wherever they roam to say a zoo, do you not think that it is in the best interest of the cheetah to resist, for not resisting would ultimately lead to total destitution and statelessness?
> 
> And lets not talk about an evolved society, for evolved societies dont drop heavy duty bombs and chemicals on a destitute population. And evolved societies would immediately object at such actions and not try to make excuses for these actions. We in the west are such evolved societies arent we???




Pre 2006 Palestinians did not even have a refugee camp as you put it. There is a path to statehood but it will take patience from the Palestinians. Add to that a huge worldwide focus coupled with diplomacy and constant pressure.
And the fellow Arab countries that do not want to be bothered just adds to the enormity of the problem.
The message is simple from Israel
Continue your agression and we will destroy you
Stop and though oppression and discomfort may still exist so will you
If you think that you can fight and lose so many people you are mad, as mad as someone that straps explosives to themselves to blow up innocent people and thinks that their actions will 1: Make a difference and 2: Be the right way to achieve ones goals

Have the Palestine people exhausted all Diplomatic avenues... I think not

It took years for apartheid to end in South Africa, years and a consistent worldwide struggle led by the victims.

Anyway Rowie you have the right of reply but this is my last post on this topic
Cheers


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Pre 2006 Palestinians did not even have a refugee camp as you put it. There is a path to statehood but it will take patience from the Palestinians. Add to that a huge worldwide focus coupled with diplomacy and constant pressure.
> And the fellow Arab countries that do not want to be bothered just adds to the enormity of the problem.
> The message is simple from Israel
> Continue your agression and we will destroy you
> ...





I agree that diplomacy is vital in reaching a solution. However against a party which has no real interest in diplomacy, who have no real interest in a 2 state solution it is extremely difficult - unless there is pressure from the rest of the world. Like apartheid, the main reason for its demise was the worlds influence on south africas politics at the time and its resistance to the system. Coupled with the struggle of the ANC and Mandela's incarceration, all these factors galvanised at the time to bring about its eventual collapse. 
The struggle of the palestinians is much the same however influence from the rest of the world is muted in contrast. No embargos on israel whatsoever apart from select muslim countries. Instead they have access to huge wealth and literally a blank cheque from the worlds most powerful country. Hence under this cover, they do as they please. Various palestinian factions have come and gone over the decades, both resisting in armed struggle and willing to take the diplomatic avenue. However when there is no real intention from 1 party to compromise at all, there can be no solution. So solution must be brought about from the outside, forced from the outside as in the case of south africa. But with blank cheque support from US, this will never be possible. 
So palestinians will continue the struggle - the only way they know how. Until the world finally stands up and says that they have had enough, that they must be given land and recognised as an independent state.


----------



## disarray (20 January 2009)

> So palestinians will continue the struggle - the only way they know how. Until the world finally stands up and says that they have had enough, that they must be given land and recognised as an independent state.




so keep blowing stuff up until people get sick of it and give you what you want hey? you'll forgive me if i don't hold my breath while i wait for that tactic to work.


----------



## lucas (20 January 2009)

rowie said:


> So palestinians will continue the struggle - the only way they know how. Until the world finally stands up and says that they have had enough, that they must be given land and recognised as an independent state.




The only way they know how is by pushing handicapped people off ships; murdering athletes; blowing up innocents; firing rockets indiscriminately into crowded cities for years on end; and calling for the wholesale destruction of the enemy as policy.

Hasn't anyone told the Ps about PR? It doesn't wash, it doesn't work and it's about time that they tried a sensible tactic.


----------



## The Muffin Man (20 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Hello, but that is exactly what they have been doing! Havent you been watching the news???@!!!




Hello, but the IDF says they fire upon targets which fire upon them. Haven't you been watching the news and listening to what Israel has been saying???@!!!


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> Hello, but the IDF says they fire upon targets which fire upon them. Haven't you been watching the news and listening to what Israel has been saying???@!!!




So they fire at schools, houses, hospitals, UN facilities, businesses. They have fired at UN schools and the HQ knowing full well theyre coordinates and knowing full well they are full of civilians - women and children. How do you justify that?


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> Hello, but the IDF says they fire upon targets which fire upon them. Haven't you been watching the news and listening to what Israel has been saying???@!!!




Have a read of this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4580139.stm

Im sure you will argue its Amnesty International propaganda.


----------



## mayk (20 January 2009)

Strategically, moral issues aside, the timing of Israel offensive was extra-ordinary. By quietly withdrawing, during this transition of power in US, the world will forget Gaza in a matter of days.

It also sits well with all the parties participating in the next election in Israel. Even those who had no chance of winning the election are now the likely candidates. 

Militarily Israel must have done sufficient structural damage. Hamaz organization in disarray, with many Palestinians partially blaming them for their sufferings. Not to mention the total silence of the Arab world over this episode. Overall a poorly co-ordinated effort on Hamaz part.

In conclusion, Israel has taken full advantage of this window of opportunity. Gaza (and Hamaz) would take a while (6-12 months) to recoup their losses, and by that time, the new administration will be tamed into submissiveness.


----------



## rederob (20 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Pre 2006 Palestinians did not even have a refugee camp as you put it.



There have been Palestinian refugee camps for about 70 years.



> There is a path to statehood but it will take patience from the Palestinians.



Over 100 UN resolutions in support of a Palestinian State: And we have..... 



> Add to that a huge worldwide focus coupled with diplomacy and constant pressure.



Which have achieved diddly squat since partition in 1947.



> And the fellow Arab countries that do not want to be bothered just adds to the enormity of the problem.



Be careful where you get your news!



> The message is simple from Israel
> Continue your aggression and we will destroy you



Doubtful, there are almost as many Palestinian refugees scattered nearby as there are Jews in Israel



> Stop and though oppression and discomfort may still exist so will you



So it's ok to be treated like a dog; "lie down and play dead".



> If you think that you can fight and lose so many people you are mad, as mad as someone that straps explosives to themselves to blow up innocent people and thinks that their actions will 1: Make a difference and 2: Be the right way to achieve ones goals



Non sequiturs make poor logical arguments.



> Have the Palestine people exhausted all Diplomatic avenues... I think not



Since 1949, Resolution 194 has been reaffirmed more than 110 times by the General Assembly. 
_"Refugees who wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to, property which under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible." _



> It took years for apartheid to end in South Africa, years and a consistent worldwide struggle led by the victims.



Very, very different circumstances.  Apartheid had as many supporters abroad as did the Ku Klux Klan.  South Africa's fate was inevitable, on the sheer weight of numbers, aside from external pressures.


----------



## Macquack (20 January 2009)

mayk said:


> Strategically, moral issues aside, the timing of Israel offensive was extra-ordinary. By quietly withdrawing, during this transition of power in US, the world will forget Gaza in a matter of days.
> 
> It also sits well with all the parties participating in the next election in Israel. Even those who had no chance of winning the election are now the likely candidates.
> 
> ...




Mayk, I dont quite get what you mean.

Do you mean Hamas will be tamed into submission?

Or, do you mean it was the last chance for war mongering "nazi" Ehud Olmert to inflict as much punishment he could on the Palestian people?


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

lucas said:


> The only way they know how is by pushing handicapped people off ships; murdering athletes; blowing up innocents; firing rockets indiscriminately into crowded cities for years on end; and calling for the wholesale destruction of the enemy as policy.
> 
> Hasn't anyone told the Ps about PR? It doesn't wash, it doesn't work and it's about time that they tried a sensible tactic.




LOL


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

lucas said:


> The only way they know how is by pushing handicapped people off ships; murdering athletes; blowing up innocents; firing rockets indiscriminately into crowded cities for years on end; and calling for the wholesale destruction of the enemy as policy.
> 
> Hasn't anyone told the Ps about PR? It doesn't wash, it doesn't work and it's about time that they tried a sensible tactic.




Do you happen to subscribe to jihadwatch as well Lucas??


----------



## mayk (20 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> Mayk, I dont quite get what you mean.
> 
> Do you mean Hamas will be tamed into submission?
> 
> Or, do you mean it was the last chance for war mongering "nazi" Ehud Olmert to inflict as much punishment he could on the Palestian people?




I mean Obamamania will cool down and can easily be manipulated by Israel lobby. They don't want him to lose public face so early in the office.

Even if Hamas is finished, a new organization will appear. Oppression spawns freedom fighters (aka terrorists ). Listen to the British politician's speech I posted, gave such an accurate account of what is happening.


----------



## lucas (20 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Do you happen to subscribe to jihadwatch as well Lucas??




Would it make my point any less relevant? If so, why? Because it is an alternative to your viewpoint? And that makes it somehow less plausible? Why are your extremes acceptable, but any other viewpoint, extreme or otherwise, is instantly dismissable? If it smells like, quacks like a fascist attitude, I think it might well be... 



rowie said:


> Israel has proved time and time again that everyone in Gaza is fair game, including children. This crap about children as human shields is simply that - crap. Hamas would at the very least know by now that this tactic simply does not work in the face of an army willing to kill just about anyone. There is no logic in this.




Well, that is what you wholeheartedly and I think sincerely believe. But how do you explain this video that Snake presented a while back?



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> And here is the knockout punch:
> 
> 
> 
> Take the rose coloured glasses off.





I would like to know your argument for believing the human shield statements to be crap given that video. Should we perhaps find someone who can validate the Arabic?

I am prepared to believe anything.


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Would it make my point any less relevant? If so, why? Because it is an alternative to your viewpoint? And that makes it somehow less plausible? Why are your extremes acceptable, but any other viewpoint, extreme or otherwise, is instantly dismissable? If it smells like, quacks like a fascist attitude, I think it might well be...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you can cite one piece of evidence, not from Israel or Hamas of them using children as human shields, then perhaps I may be convinced. The best source to get this is from the UN since they are the main humanitarian body in Gaza and they are neutral. If the shield theory is correct, the UN would know and report this. Go look for evidence. Oh, here is a video you might find interesting - interview with a UN official(perhaps a Hamas agent?):
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=0O1YpBF1_bM


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

And please dont provide source of evidence from the Israeli ambassador to the UN.


----------



## lucas (20 January 2009)

rowie said:


> If you can cite one piece of evidence, not from Israel or Hamas of them using children as human shields, then perhaps I may be convinced. The best source to get this is from the UN since they are the main humanitarian body in Gaza and they are neutral. If the shield theory is correct, the UN would know and report this. Go look for evidence. Oh, here is a video you might find interesting - interview with a UN official(perhaps a Hamas agent?):
> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=0O1YpBF1_bM




So, I'll do the work for you - your argument is that this is mere rhetoric, right?


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

[cartoon3.jpg]


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

lucas said:


> So, I'll do the work for you - your argument is that this is mere rhetoric, right?




Yes, please do the work. And please, independent reliable sources only.


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

Here is potentially a reliable source of info:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-...dangered-military-tactics-both-sides-20090108


----------



## lucas (20 January 2009)

I asked you to explain the content of the video - that is, why a Hamas MP would say such a thing.

Are you saying that we should not believe it because it comes from an unreliable source? That is, you are saying this is not a Hamas MP and he is not saying what we are being led to believe he is saying? As I said, I don't know arabic. Maybe you do.

If you explain the video away as from an unreliable source, then you must be saying it is somehow doctored? Or it is rhetoric only?

Which is it? Both, neither or either? Which?


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I asked you to explain the content of the video - that is, why a Hamas MP would say such a thing.
> 
> Are you saying that we should not believe it because it comes from an unreliable source? That is, you are saying this is not a Hamas MP and he is not saying what we are being led to believe he is saying? As I said, I don't know arabic. Maybe you do.
> 
> ...




Lucas, please simply provide evidence. If this is in fact what Hamas is doing, there must be accounts from neutral sources. Whatever the translation of the video, rhetoric, unreliable etc....

Oh btw, it seems that this issue is turning on its head. The more I search, the more proof I find that it is in fact the IDF who utilise palestinian human shields in theyre operations in the occupied territories. Note that my sources are from Amnesty the UN and Israeli human rights groups, not Hamas propaganda:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

Amnesty International report on Israels use of Gazans as human shields:

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?ThreadID=896969


----------



## lucas (20 January 2009)

So you refuse to explain the man's words or even entertain the possibility that this is as it appears, a Hamas MP mouthing off about how his constituents should be proud to use themselves as human shields? You argument is, it seems, that I should prove it.

Notice, I didn't ask you to prove it were not true; I asked you provide an argument as to why its existence should not lead any reasonable viewer to conclude that it is what it is.

Your arguments against this video being credible are not arguments at all, they are simply deflections from having to answer.


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

Again another article on the use of human shields by the IDF, this time from Israels oldest daily paper: 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/867486.html


----------



## lucas (20 January 2009)

More deflection - more refusal to accept the possibility of anything other than your own beliefs.


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

lucas said:


> So you refuse to explain the man's words or even entertain the possibility that this is as it appears, a Hamas MP mouthing off about how his constituents should be proud to use themselves as human shields? You argument is, it seems, that I should prove it.
> 
> Notice, I didn't ask you to prove it were not true; I asked you provide an argument as to why its existence should not lead any reasonable viewer to conclude that it is what it is.
> 
> Your arguments against this video being credible are not arguments at all, they are simply deflections from having to answer.




Lucas, I am trying to tell you that I can accept any neutral evidence that is put forward to me that shows that they use human shields. The video u put forward is firstly in Arabic (cant understand). Secondly it could possibly be rhetoric, in the same way that many despotic moronic leaders say that the blood of every last civilian will be spilt in defence of etc etc etc. What I am asking u to provide is proof from say the UN that this is in fact modus operandi of the Palestinian resistance. Now as far as I know, actions speak a whole lot louder than words. So while I am not refuting what this guy on the video is saying, all I am asking for is neutral proof. Such as the proof that I have provided showing Israels complicity in using human shields.... Go and get it and convince me. This video does not convince me. (It could be true, but I am not entirely convinced) Is this so hard to understand?


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

lucas said:


> More deflection - more refusal to accept the possibility of anything other than your own beliefs.




Looks like your stumped. This human shields argument has turned full circle.


----------



## rowie (20 January 2009)

lucas said:


> More deflection - more refusal to accept the possibility of anything other than your own beliefs.




Like I said, I am willing to accept any possibility, just show me substantial, neutral evidence!@!!


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Like I said, I am willing to accept any possibility, just show me substantial, *neutral evidence*!@!!




Indeed. It seems to me that it's a tactic used by all sorts of soldiers/fighters of all persuasions down through the ages.

The fact that it seems Israelis also did so, comes as no surprise.


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Indeed. It seems to me that it's a tactic used by all sorts of soldiers/fighters of all persuasions down through the ages.
> 
> The fact that it seems Israelis also did so, comes as no surprise.




Agree. Actually, large body of evidence points to the fact that this tactic is more widely used by the IDF than Hamas. Which would make more sense considering they are the occupiers.


----------



## lucas (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Agree. Actually, large body of evidence points to the fact that this tactic is more widely used by the IDF than Hamas. Which would make more sense considering they are the occupiers.




So, in your own words, your previous comment about Hamas' use of civilians as human shields being crap is...crap.

Thought so.


----------



## Sean K (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Actually, large body of evidence points to the fact that this tactic is more widely used by the IDF than Hamas.



We're talking about human shields here are we?

Just for clarrification.

Cheers.


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

lucas said:


> So, in your own words, your previous comment about Hamas' use of civilians as human shields being crap is...crap.
> 
> Thought so.




Lucas buddy, I am still waiting for evidence on your part - You said you were going to work on it.... Until then, it still is crap in my opinion, until you show me *neutral* evidence to the contrary.


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

kennas said:


> We're talking about human shields here are we?
> 
> Just for clarrification.
> 
> Cheers.




Yes.


----------



## disarray (21 January 2009)

israel has also used human shields before, however the practice has been outlawed by israel's supreme court and forbidden by the army. accusations of human shield use by the IDF are investigated by the army so it isn't an official policy by any stretch, although it still occurs on occasion. contrast with hamas who use human shields as official policy.

i would imagine maintaining morals and ethics during wartime would be difficult, especially when fighting an enemy that doesn't seem to demonstrate any.  



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> The practice was outlawed by the Supreme Court of Israel in 2005 but human rights groups insist the IDF continues to use it, although they acknowledge the number of instances has dropped sharply ...
> 
> In November 2006, Palestinian women volunteered as human shields to allow the escape of Hamas gunmen from Israeli forces in Beit Hanoun in the Gaza Strip. The armed Palestinians had barricaded themselves in a mosque, which was surrounded by Israeli troops and tanks. According to a Hamas spokeman, a crowd of women gathered outside the mosque in response to an appeal on the local radio station for women to protect the Hamas fighters. The Palestinian gunmen escaped by dressing in women's clothes and hiding in the large group.
> 
> ...


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

disarray said:


> israel has also used human shields before, however the practice has been outlawed by israel's supreme court and forbidden by the army. accusations of human shield use by the IDF are investigated by the army so it isn't an official policy by any stretch, although it still occurs on occasion. contrast with hamas who use human shields as official policy.
> 
> i would imagine maintaining morals and ethics during wartime would be difficult, especially when fighting an enemy that doesn't seem to demonstrate any.




Yes, so now please provide independent, neutral evidence that hamas systematically employ the human shield tactic - evidence from the UN, amnesty or respected Human Rights groups operating in the occupied territories will suffice.


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

disarray said:


> i would imagine maintaining morals and ethics during wartime would be difficult, especially when fighting an enemy that doesn't seem to demonstrate any.




Your defence of the indefensible is incredible.


----------



## disarray (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Yes, so now please provide independent, neutral evidence that hamas systematically employ the human shield tactic - evidence from the UN, amnesty or respected Human Rights groups operating in the occupied territories will suffice.




ok.

from Amnesty International



> Palestinian families caught up in the current fighting in the Gaza Strip report that in some cases Palestinian gunmen have agreed to vacate areas near civilian homes without firing at Israeli forces when local residents have objected to their presence. In other cases, however, they have refused the residents’ requests and only left after firing. In still other cases, residents say they were too scared to ask the gunmen to leave.
> 
> Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups have unlawfully endangered civilians in Gaza by firing rockets into Israel from densely populated residential areas


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Here is potentially a reliable source of info:
> 
> http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-...dangered-military-tactics-both-sides-20090108




Bravo for the cut n paste disarray, but that was taken from an article i previously posted. Is that all you have got?


----------



## disarray (21 January 2009)

so your own link from amnesty which says hamas is using human shields isn't good enough for you?


----------



## nick2fish (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Yes, so now please provide independent, neutral evidence that hamas systematically employ the human shield tactic - evidence from the UN, amnesty or respected Human Rights groups operating in the occupied territories will suffice.





I can't stand it !!!!
You want evidence look at the civilian death toll and where the hell in the most densely populated area on earth were those missiles being fired from???

If they fire one bullet at enemy troops from an occupied civilian house is that not using civilians as a shield ???

Hamas entire aggressive stance to goad an enemy into an invasion reeks of the human shield tactic. 
Maybe if they invaded Israel with their Militia I wouldn't have a problem with their aggression for the cause. 
But no they chose to start a war and hide behind their dieing civilian population and hope international Muslim uproar reaches such a level as to promote the mass invasion and destruction of Israel. 
Worth the sacrifice of over 1200 civilians????????
To the mind of a terrorist the answer is Yes
Rowie, other people have opinions and beliefs that are totally opposed to yours. 
Please accept this fact 

Why...most of Hamas most damaging propaganda has emanated from their own barbaric mouths...IMO


----------



## Sean K (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Actually, large body of evidence points to the fact that this tactic is more widely used by the IDF than Hamas.






kennas said:


> We're talking about human shields here are we?
> 
> Just for clarrification.
> 
> Cheers.






rowie said:


> Yes.



So, can you give me a reference.

Thanks.


----------



## Sean K (21 January 2009)

disarray said:


> so your own link from amnesty which says hamas is using human shields isn't good enough for you?



I'm a little confused too.


----------



## Happy (21 January 2009)

The only question now is who was more wrong, as both sides seem to have turned a blind eye on quite important issues.


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> I can't stand it !!!!
> You want evidence look at the civilian death toll and where the hell in the most densely populated area on earth were those missiles being fired from???
> 
> If they fire one bullet at enemy troops from an occupied civilian house is that not using civilians as a shield ???
> ...





Yet again, its incredible how you can justify attacks on a civilian population and not attribute any blame to the parties that are actually firing the mortars and dropping the bombs!!! The bombs/bullets/mortars/white phosphorous fired into Gaza were all from the Israeli army! And yet Hamas are to blame! 
Goad an enemy - if fighting back means goading an enemy then you are right. But they have a right to fight back! And fight back they do in the most densely populated places on this earth. And the reason they fight back from there? - Because they have been forcibly squeezed into this area, guess what? - they dont have any other land to fight back from! And this is the main reason for theyre fight!


----------



## The Muffin Man (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Have a read of this:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4580139.stm
> 
> Im sure you will argue its Amnesty International propaganda.




For a start that report is 5 years old. 

Secondly it says "The report lists reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian areas... and excessive use of force."

Shelling and air strikes in civilian areas, if that's where current HAMAS fighters are mingling with the population, how else can they be attacked? If fire was to come out of these areas (built up civilian areas), then who's fault is it if the IDF retaliates? That's a genuine question because that is where a major problem lies. I'm guessing all it would take is a couple of gunmen within a schools grounds to start firing upon advancing IDF troops for the IDF to retaliate with stronger force. Who's fault is it then when children and civilians are caught in the cross fire? I don't think it's as cut and dry as you would like to believe.


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

kennas said:


> So, can you give me a reference.
> 
> Thanks.




Check out my previous posts for references but here is one of them:

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?ThreadID=896969


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> For a start that report is 5 years old.
> 
> Secondly it says "The report lists reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian areas... and excessive use of force."
> 
> Shelling and air strikes in civilian areas, if that's where current HAMAS fighters are mingling with the population, how else can they be attacked? If fire was to come out of these areas (built up civilian areas), then who's fault is it if the IDF retaliates? That's a genuine question because that is where a major problem lies. I'm guessing all it would take is a couple of gunmen within a schools grounds to start firing upon advancing IDF troops for the IDF to retaliate with stronger force. Who's fault is it then when children and civilians are caught in the cross fire? I don't think it's as cut and dry as you would like to believe.




Here:
http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?ThreadID=896969


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> For a start that report is 5 years old.
> 
> Secondly it says "The report lists reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian areas... and excessive use of force."
> 
> Shelling and air strikes in civilian areas, if that's where current HAMAS fighters are mingling with the population, how else can they be attacked? If fire was to come out of these areas (built up civilian areas), then who's fault is it if the IDF retaliates? That's a genuine question because that is where a major problem lies. I'm guessing all it would take is a couple of gunmen within a schools grounds to start firing upon advancing IDF troops for the IDF to retaliate with stronger force. Who's fault is it then when children and civilians are caught in the cross fire? I don't think it's as cut and dry as you would like to believe.




Last week, Amnesty accused Israel of using civilians as human shields in its nearly three-week onslaught against the Gaza Strip, which has so far killed more than 971, half of them women and children.

_*Rovera said this is not the first time that Israel has used Palestinian civilians as human shields.

"It has been practiced by the Israeli army for many years and they are doing it again in Gaza now."

They also use Palestinians to drive out wanted Palestinian resistance fighters by making them approach their homes first and asking them to surrender.*_

Sounds pretty cut n dry to me.


----------



## lucas (21 January 2009)

Even when your argument is blown clean out of the water you still blather on.

Are you like this as an investor? If so, look forward to a life of much disappointment. Sometimes you just gotta know when an investment you have made is a loser. It's about maintaining some semblance of balance.

You're not a bad fellow, but you don't listen long enough to let other points of view inform you. That's a mistake whether you know it or not.


----------



## Sean K (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Last week, Amnesty accused Israel of using civilians as human shields in its nearly three-week onslaught against the Gaza Strip, which has so far killed more than 971, half of them women and children.
> 
> _*Rovera said this is not the first time that Israel has used Palestinian civilians as human shields.
> *_



_*Rovera isn't really that credible, in some opinions.

From NGO MOnitor:


Amnesty ´s “human rights meltdown”
Sarah Mandel

December 20, 2007

Revised date: December 23, 2007

Amnesty International's new website headlines the statement "Stop the human rights Meltdown. Make human rights real."  However, detailed and systematic research published by NGO Monitor and others, and cited by the Economist and the Wall Street Journal, have demonstrated that this “meltdown” has resulted from the failures of NGO superpowers.  Amnesty's only researcher for Israel and the Palestinian territories, Donatella Rovera shares the responsibility for this situation. Her claims in the interviews in Haaretz ('Things are far worse in Algeria,' Aryeh Dayan, December 12, 2007) and the Jerusalem Post (‘HR Issues were ignored at Annapolis’, Dan Izenberg, December 17, 2007) not withstanding, Rovera’s work reflects a lack the professionalism, credibility and scrupulous commitment to human rights, and she has consistently contributed to the politicization (and hence, the destruction) of universal human rights norms.

Maybe all's not that cut and dry.*_


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Even when your argument is blown clean out of the water you still blather on.
> 
> Are you like this as an investor? If so, look forward to a life of much disappointment. Sometimes you just gotta know when an investment you have made is a loser. It's about maintaining some semblance of balance.
> 
> You're not a bad fellow, but you don't listen long enough to let other points of view inform you. That's a mistake whether you know it or not.




I think your words here could very easily reflect your own stance and inability to look at the opposite side of an argument. My judgements are based on what I perceive is right and just in this matter. Simple as that. Dont bring up the investment side of things, thats a whole different matter.


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Rovera isn't really that credible, in some opinions.
> 
> From NGO MOnitor:
> 
> ...




It is fairly cut & dry really:

Again another article on the use of human shields by the IDF, this time from Israels oldest daily paper: 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/867486.html


----------



## nick2fish (21 January 2009)

They have a choice alright and that is too achieve their aims/goals peacefully
as opposed to exposing their civilian population to harm.

3 or 4 years ago they had nothing, now they have land albeit a sardine can

They didn't get that far by pitching rockets, it was by constant political pressure (Maybe by making the Lebanese peoples life hell certainly aided their cause)
 Rowie, they may be uncomfortable, and unjustly deprived of their fair due, but are the survivors not alive, is all hope of a peaceful solution as dead as the 1200 fallen?

Wake up and smell the roses Rowie, Palestine is being governed by terrorists who have no concern for the safety and health of their citizens,just the achievement of their goals. Now some of their goals are noble and just and eventually have a chance to be resolved by diplomacy
Some like the complete annihilation of Israel.....
Welcome the fact that the Saudi's have shown a compassionate hand, and hopefully more goodwill will come from their Arab Muslim brothers.
Just don't threaten Israels citizens, negoitate to build on what you already have acheived, be patient, gather international support and financial backing for things other than weapons. 
Israel will not attack unless it is attacked (Palestine)

They choose to fight as opposed to negotiation and they do have a choice because nobody is holding a gun to their head...yet


----------



## lucas (21 January 2009)

I have read most of your references, rowie, with keen observation and curiosity. I still maintain my original position which is not to take sides. When an argument you or anyone else proposes doesn't hold water, I comment. But I haven't taken a mortgage out on an extreme position.

NOTE TO MODERATOR:

Can I ask whoever moderates these forums that posters post one post at a time - in sequence with others - unless making a correction? This mortar fire approach is so boring and, I think, bordering on offensive.


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> They have a choice alright and that is too achieve their aims/goals peacefully
> as opposed to exposing their civilian population to harm.
> 
> 3 or 4 years ago they had nothing, now they have land albeit a sardine can
> ...




This is where I am in total disagreement with you on just about every line of your response. And I am not going to try to explain why any more, it really is futile - you have your point of view and I have mine, I agree to disagree. We both have a different take on the reality of the situation.


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I have read most of your references, rowie, with keen observation and curiosity. I still maintain my original position which is not to take sides. When an argument you or anyone else proposes doesn't hold water, I comment. But I haven't taken a mortgage out on an extreme position.
> 
> NOTE TO MODERATOR:
> 
> Can I ask whoever moderates these forums that posters post one post at a time, in sequence with others - unless making a correction? This mortar fire approach is so boring and, I think, bordering on offensive.





LOL, your kidding right?


----------



## Sean K (21 January 2009)

lucas said:


> NOTE TO MODERATOR:
> 
> Can I ask whoever moderates these forums that posters post one post at a time - in sequence with others - unless making a correction? This mortar fire approach is so boring and, I think, bordering on offensive.



I can't see that. Just need to read faster lucas!


----------



## lucas (21 January 2009)

It's only a request - not a demand, and I read plenty fast enough. But I feel that three posts in a row from the same fellow (on a regular basis) is not in the best interests of forum readers.


----------



## Sean K (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> It is fairly cut & dry really:
> 
> Again another article on the use of human shields by the IDF, this time from Israels oldest daily paper:
> 
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/867486.html



rowie, the previous person you quoted has been entirely discredited from what I read, so your first reference doesn't hold water, and you have refused to try and support it any further.

Your latest reference is for actions in 2007, which I agree, looks dodgy. IDF forcing Palestinians to enter their neighbours homes before the military to provide them cover. While not 'proof' it's reasonable to assume that the IDF did do this. How often, is unclear, and to what extent unclear.

Why would have they used this tactic? They were trying to flush out the enemy, from civilian homes. From civilian homes. 

From your reference....




> Last update - 00:17 06/06/2007
> 
> *IDF probes soldiers' use of Palestinian human shields*
> By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent
> ...




While it was only under investigation and was outlawed by Israel anyway, I do not support this type of action, even if the enemy was hiding in a civilian house, although, that has occurred since day zero, and combatants have fought in and amongst the civilian population since day zero. 

What it tells me overall, is that in war, civilians will be in the way and be used, and neither side is innocent, or ever will be. 

I think you need to admit some guilt of Hamas in their actions to attempt to both kill innocent Israelis and put their own people at risk to seem more reasonable.


----------



## disarray (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> It is fairly cut & dry really:
> 
> Again another article on the use of human shields by the IDF, this time from Israels oldest daily paper:
> 
> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/867486.html




oohhh does israeli media qualify as an acceptable source now does it? i've refrained from posting statements by israeli politicians, UN envoys and israeli based sources anticipating you'd just play the "unreliable israeli source" line,  but if you think referencing israeli newspapers to further your points is kosher, well then i'd be more than happy to provide more human shield / hamas terrorist / israeli restraint references for you


----------



## Macquack (21 January 2009)

Everyone agrees it is unacceptable to use innocent civilians as human shields.

So lets move on to the more important question.

Is it acceptable to slaughter innocent civilians that have been set up as human shields?

The answer is NO.


----------



## nick2fish (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> This is where I am in total disagreement with you on just about every line of your response. And I am not going to try to explain why any more, it really is futile - you have your point of view and I have mine, I agree to disagree. We both have a different take on the reality of the situation.




Now that is one post of yours that I can agree on...We have progress...Now I will move on... Cheers Rowie


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (21 January 2009)

Macquack said:


> Is it acceptable to slaughter innocent civilians that have been set up as human shields?



OR we could ask just for the thinking caps:
Is it acceptable to use civilians as shields when we know the other side will destory you regardless because you are a threat to peace?


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

disarray said:


> oohhh does israeli media qualify as an acceptable source now does it? i've refrained from posting statements by israeli politicians, UN envoys and israeli based sources anticipating you'd just play the "unreliable israeli source" line,  but if you think referencing israeli newspapers to further your points is kosher, well then i'd be more than happy to provide more human shield / hamas terrorist / israeli restraint references for you





Ok go ahead. I have posted UN and Amnesty sources anyway. This whole issue came about because of various posts showing Hamas use of human shields. I think I have covered the issue sufficiently to show that the human shield tactic has in fact been used by the IDF as stated by the UN, Amnesty and an Israeli newspaper. Please dont post the video of the Hamas speach because it really isnt conclusive. Try to post actual reports or footage if you can - And not reports from Israeli military or govt officials. Thanks


----------



## Macquack (21 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Is it acceptable to use civilians as shields when *we* know the *other side *will destory *you* regardless because *you* are a threat to peace?




Could you please restate the question? I dont know what you mean.


----------



## rederob (21 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> They have a choice alright and that is too achieve their aims/goals peacefully as opposed to exposing their civilian population to harm.
> 3 or 4 years ago they had nothing, now they have land albeit a sardine can



Your posts continue to show a mind numbing ignorance of common knowledge.
*The Palestinians have less land today than ever*.
To say that 3-4 years ago they had "nothing" is a plain and simple lie, or sheer stupidity.
Earlier I replied your previous post, by outlining 60 years of diplomatic and international efforts to resolve the conflict, to no avail.  It's naive to think a diplomatic solution is around the corner.

Israel remains in regular and constant breach of UN resolutions, and for years has been engaging in extrajudicial assassinations, which are illegal under international laws and norms.  These assassinations have killed many more Palestinians than vice versa.
While Palestinians are guilty of occasional terrorist acts, and misguided rocket attacks, extrajudicial assassinations are State policy.  These assassinations usually get a mention when there's a heavy civilian count accompanying them.  And they are "justified" because they target "terrorists".
Two wrongs don't make a right.

The side show on "human shields" has cut both ways for decades, in conflicts throughout the world.  It's a topic not worth buying into, except to reinforce how dispensable people are in times of conflict.


----------



## disarray (21 January 2009)

rederob said:


> While Palestinians are guilty of occasional terrorist acts




appears more commonplace than occasional to me. these are just the fatal ones and don't take into account the thousands of other attacks which were unsuccessful but still intended to murder as many innocent people as possible.


----------



## rederob (21 January 2009)

disarray said:


> appears more commonplace than occasional to me[/URL]. these are just the fatal ones and don't take into account the thousands of other attacks which were unsuccessful but still intended to murder as many innocent people as possible.



Prone to more exaggeration, disarray?
I counter your laughable response with a claim that the Israelis also unsuccessfully attempted thousands of assassinations.
By the way, your referenced link is an exercise in Jewish fairy tales.  Their treatment of the Palestinian issue reads like they refused a very good offer at the outset, and have been vindictively trying to get more than they have rightful claim to.  It neatly sidesteps the issue of sheer dispossession.
And for the record, from early this century Jews acted like terrorists in their bid to oust Palestinians from their homes and their lands.  Little has changed.


----------



## lucas (21 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Prone to more exaggeration, disarray?
> I counter your laughable response with a claim that the Israelis also unsuccessfully attempted thousands of assassinations.




I take it you do understand the difference between murder and assassination? But, sigh, I guess not.


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I take it you do understand the difference between murder and assassination? But, sigh, I guess not.




Yet again Lucas, u have amazingly missed rederobs point altogether (as well as all the vital facts that he has stated). May as well be debating this issue with a brick wall...


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Prone to more exaggeration, disarray?
> I counter your laughable response with a claim that the Israelis also unsuccessfully attempted thousands of assassinations.
> By the way, your referenced link is an exercise in Jewish fairy tales.  Their treatment of the Palestinian issue reads like they refused a very good offer at the outset, and have been vindictively trying to get more than they have rightful claim to.  It neatly sidesteps the issue of sheer dispossession.
> And for the record, from early this century Jews acted like terrorists in their bid to oust Palestinians from their homes and their lands.  Little has changed.




The difference is Rederob, state sanctioned mayhem by men in uniforms or government agents is never considered as terrorism. This is how folks minds are manipulated into picking sides. However, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

There is also a seeming complicity in not reporting the regular acts of Israeli terrorism in the occupied territories.

Folks don't even realize they are being manipulated. When some Muslim bozo commits an atrocity, it all over the news, but when Israel bulldozes palestinian houses, or assasinates a palestinian or bumps off some kid who went too close to a checkpoint, it is scarcely reported.


----------



## lucas (21 January 2009)

rowie said:


> May as well be debating this issue with a brick wall...




Well, aren't you? You don't listen to any other point of view - about a complex issue in which two sides are fighting completely different wars.

The first step out of checkmate is to recognise that both sides have a position - to insist that only one side is ultimately right is to condemn your "team" to eternal chaos. I think the Palestinians deserve better than that - and better than your loose arguments.

The wall strikes back!


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

kennas said:


> Rovera isn't really that credible, in some opinions.
> 
> From NGO MOnitor:
> 
> ...




Kenna, looking further into the article you provided that discredited the amnesty official, i found that it was written by a pro-israeli non-govt organisation - NGO Monitor. Really it doesnt instill much confidence coming from a source like this with obvious hidden agendas. In my opinion Amnesty International are a far more credible human rights NGO with a long and proven track record. My question is why would you quote this source to discredit an organisation like Amnesty International?


----------



## rowie (21 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Well, aren't you? You don't listen to any other point of view - about a complex issue in which two sides are fighting completely different wars.
> 
> The first step out of checkmate is to recognise that both sides have a position - to insist that only one side is ultimately right is to condemn your "team" to eternal chaos. I think the Palestinians deserve better than that - and better than your loose arguments.
> 
> The wall strikes back!




Your comment about the difference between assasination and murder was so beside the point that it simply does no justice to rederobs post. I think it really shows that you either refuse to understand what he is trying to say or u just cant understand. Your posts are quite baffling. Even this post about how 2 sides are fighting different wars - seriously, wtf?


----------



## disarray (22 January 2009)

rederob said:
			
		

> Prone to more exaggeration, disarray?




what? hundreds of attacks over decades and thousands of rocket launches is an "occasional" thing according to you? 



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> I counter your laughable response with a claim that the Israelis also unsuccessfully attempted thousands of assassinations.




heh internet debates are serious business. "i counter your laughable response!!1" lol.  p.s. if you want to "counter a claim", particularly one that is referenced, then try referencing something other than your own opinion. it also helps if it is relevant to the point, in this case, the palestinians commit lots and lots of terror attacks, not just the occasional one. you don't have to in this case though, israel and mossad are well known for their employment of assassination. seen munich? but sometimes the israelis warn the target they are coming which seems rather civilised even if it defeats the purpose.



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> By the way, your referenced link is an exercise in Jewish fairy tales.




the israeli ministry of foreign affairs is a fairy tale site is it? anyway i'm not saying the israelis are saints. i'm just countering yours and rowies endless blatherings about how badly the poor palestinians are treated and how israel is some evil aggressor when both are assholes as far as i'm concerned (but i have more sympathy for the israelis because i think palestinian culture and religion is more inherently violent - honour killings, childrens shows that preach jihad, radical islamism etc., and that must be hard to live next door to).



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> And for the record, from early this century Jews acted like terrorists in their bid to oust Palestinians from their homes and their lands. Little has changed.




and for the record the arabs have repeatedly invaded israel with the express purpose of wiping them off the map, hamas has an official policy to do the same, and they are financed by iran which publicly states their desire to commit genocide against the jews. we'll just sidestep all that too shall we? yes its all about the jews being evil and the poor peaceful palestinians are just innocent victims of an oppressive nation 



			
				rowie said:
			
		

> May as well be debating this issue with a brick wall...




pot, meet kettle



			
				WayneL said:
			
		

> The difference is Rederob, state sanctioned mayhem by men in uniforms or government agents is never considered as terrorism. This is how folks minds are manipulated into picking sides.




hmmm lets see. terrorism is the systematic use of violence to create fear, generally to achieve an ideological goal, it deliberately targets civilians and seeks to create mass havoc and casualties.

assassination is the targetted killing of an individual (or small group of individuals) for ideological, military or various unhinged purposes. by definition they are very different things.



			
				WayneL said:
			
		

> There is also a seeming complicity in not reporting the regular acts of Israeli terrorism in the occupied territories




what are you talking about? the media is full of pro-palestinian bias in the reporting of the situation. this is quite the game of semantics though - terrorism vs. military action but it's a brave new world and lines are becoming blurred, there is no black and white, right or wrong, innocent or guilty, its all one big fkd up mess neither side seems particularly keen to extract themselves from because they've been at it for so long.



			
				WayneL said:
			
		

> Folks don't even realize they are being manipulated. When some Muslim bozo commits an atrocity, it all over the news, but when Israel bulldozes palestinian houses, or assasinates a palestinian or bumps off some kid who went too close to a checkpoint, it is scarcely reported.




crap

let's see, israel bulldozes palestinian houses gives us the independent (uk), the ny times, cnn, the obligitory wiki link and a few blogs, all on the first results page.

the three of you are like peas in a pod, just because someone holds different ideas (which are referenced to various sources that are continually discredited by you armchair experts) we're manipulated, nieve, ignorant, don't have the facts, blah blah blah. get off your high horse.



			
				lucas said:
			
		

> The first step out of checkmate is to recognise that both sides have a position - to insist that only one side is ultimately right is to condemn your "team" to eternal chaos.




there it is in a nutshell.


----------



## lucas (22 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Your comment about the difference between assasination and murder was so beside the point that it simply does no justice to rederobs post. I think it really shows that you either refuse to understand what he is trying to say or u just cant understand. Your posts are quite baffling. Even this post about how 2 sides are fighting different wars - seriously, wtf?




Of course, on the other hand, it could simply show that you don't understand what am I saying. But that would be too simple an explanation I suppose. Either way, I am not going to join the dots for you.


----------



## rowie (22 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Of course, on the other hand, it could simply show that you don't understand what am I saying. But that would be too simple an explanation I suppose. Either way, I am not going to join the dots for you.




No more responses to u from me. All the best!


----------



## nick2fish (22 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Your posts continue to show a mind numbing ignorance of common knowledge.
> *The Palestinians have less land today than ever*.
> To say that 3-4 years ago they had "nothing" is a plain and simple lie, or sheer stupidity.
> .




Ah Rederob Let me just summarize this... I am an ignorant stupid liar.

If you can tell me in what country some of your Palestine re;atives were living in 3-4 years ago and if that country had any chance(>2.5%) of becoming a Palestine State, I will except all of the above. 

Cheers, and pls leave out the 60 yr history.... it doesn't apply anymore(not my call)


----------



## mavirk (22 January 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have met many Israelis and many Palestinians in my time, and much prefer the Israelis.
> 
> The Palestinians are a dreadfully tribal people, riven by petty hatred for the outside world and for other Palestinians. Israelis make good friends and loyalty is their strong point.
> 
> ...




Next time Israelis should kill most of the tribal Palestinians. And the time after that when Arabs kill most of the Israelis, the surviving land-needers can come and settle in some part of Victoria.

I wonder what Hurst might say on these cycles.


----------



## wayneL (22 January 2009)

disarray said:


> hmmm lets see. terrorism is the systematic use of violence to create fear, generally to achieve an ideological goal, it deliberately targets civilians and seeks to create mass havoc and casualties.
> 
> assassination is the targetted killing of an individual (or small group of individuals) for ideological, military or various unhinged purposes. by definition they are very different things.




Not according to western governments. Icelandic assets were seized under terrorism laws in the UK, a bozo with a laser pen arrested under terrorism laws in the US, but I digress, let's just stick to the various dictionary definitions:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

Israel's actions in the occupied territories are well within the definition. (as are the actions of Hamas et al)

The term was coined in France where the state ruled its own people via terrorism, the etymology and history of the word thus:

terrorism 
1795, in specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France" (1793-July 1794), from Fr. terrorisme (1798), from L. terror (see terror).

    "If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]

General sense of "systematic use of terror as a policy" is first recorded in Eng. 1798. Terrorize "coerce or deter by terror" first recorded 1823. Terrorist in the modern sense dates to 1947, especially in reference to Jewish tactics against the British in Palestine -- earlier it was used of extremist revolutionaries in Russia (1866); and Jacobins during the French Revolution (1795) -- from Fr. terroriste. The tendency of one party's terrorist to be another's guerilla or freedom fighter was noted in ref. to the British action in Cyprus (1956) and the war in Rhodesia (1973). The word terrorist has been applied, at least retroactively, to the Maquis resistance in occupied France in World War II (e.g. in the "Spectator," Oct. 20, 1979).

There is no question that the Israeli state  is employing terrorism to control the Palestinian. Equally, no question that Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

That is the long and short of it.

To believe that only one side is wrong and the other side is right is nothing short of an amazing bias based on.... whatever. But I disagree with nickfish, you cannot ignore the recent 60 years of history. Y#ou can accept it as having happened and work within that frame, but you can't ignore it.




> crap
> 
> let's see, israel bulldozes palestinian houses gives us the independent (uk), the ny times, cnn, the obligitory wiki link and a few blogs, all on the first results page.
> 
> the three of you are like peas in a pod, just because someone holds different ideas (which are referenced to various sources that are continually discredited by you armchair experts) we're manipulated, nieve, ignorant, don't have the facts, blah blah blah. get off your high horse.



Forgive my confusion, but your link verifies my point, then you go on on a dummy spit. What is your point here?


----------



## rowie (22 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Ah Rederob Let me just summarize this... I am an ignorant stupid liar.
> 
> If you can tell me in what country some of your Palestine re;atives were living in 3-4 years ago and if that country had any chance(>2.5%) of becoming a Palestine State, I will except all of the above.
> 
> Cheers, and pls leave out the 60 yr history.... it doesn't apply anymore(not my call)




Nick, if I may try to explain what rederob is getting at, its not that complicated - you wrote, and I quote "3 or 4 years ago they had nothing, now they have land albeit a sardine can". This clearly implies that they have more today (a sardine can of land) than they had 3 or 4 years ago (nothing). Rederob was simply pointing out your lack of understanding on this point by stating *the fact *that palestinians have less today than they have ever in the history of this conflict.


----------



## rederob (22 January 2009)

lucas said:


> The first step out of checkmate is to recognise that both sides have a position - to insist that only one side is ultimately right is to condemn your "team" to eternal chaos. I think the Palestinians deserve better than that - and better than your loose arguments.



There is no step out of "checkmate" - it's game over.

On the other hand, Israel could try abiding by the countless UN resolutions that gave Palestinians some rightful claims, given the circumstances.

In response to disarray and the difference between murder, terrorism and assassinations: Others have made several points, but with respect to Israel's extrajudicaial assassinations there was an aspect you again, kindly, omitted.  The death toll of unintended is far higher than that of so called terrorists.  In some cases only unintended are killed - again, googling will give dozens of references.  Rather makes a mockery of the "assassination" idea.

I won't argue that, over time, terrorist and assassination events have not been sizable in number.  That's because the majority are tit for tat.  To lay the blame on one side more than the other is an exercise in futility.


----------



## rederob (22 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Ah Rederob Let me just summarize this... I am an ignorant stupid liar.



I am in a quandary.  You seem to be aware of your condition which, perhaps, makes you less stupid than you might lay claim.

The remainder of your reply confirms your plight.

I appreciate your honesty.


----------



## lucas (22 January 2009)

rederob said:


> There is no step out of "checkmate" - it's game over.




You are right - it wasn't a reference to a game but to reality - what to do once the game is over. The game is over for Hamas. There is nothing for Palestine if Hamas remains in power.

Just by the by, the belief that a UN resolution is always some kind of act of Solomon is not inevitably the case. All countries that vote for them have their own agendas.


----------



## rederob (22 January 2009)

lucas said:


> Just by the by, the belief that a UN resolution is always some kind of act of Solomon is not inevitably the case. All countries that vote for them have their own agendas.



It does not take the wisdom of Solomon to work out that if you take someones property, they might be deeply offended.  The UN resolutions seek to give Palestinians something in return for their dispossession.  Most would consider that a fair arrangement.


----------



## lucas (22 January 2009)

It doesn't take an act of Solomon to realise Israel is here to stay and Hamas' stated position of bringing about the annihalation of the enemy is suicide.

But this is going around in circles again.


----------



## rederob (22 January 2009)

lucas said:


> But this is going around in circles again.



Only because you twist the argument.
Why did the Palestinians of Gaza elect Hamas, if it sealed their death warrant?
Perhaps they would prefer to die for a cause than live without hope?
Why does Israel deny them the basics of living with dignity, knowing full well how they, as Jews, have suffered similar humilities and persecution?

But let's go back to your first point:  







> It doesn't take an act of Solomon to realise Israel is here



I would differ.
Israel is surrounded on all sides by Arabs.  In a few years time (after this recession is over), these oil rich nations will have the US eating out of their hands, and they will be lobbying against America's unbridled support of Israel.
Americans will have the choice of maintaining their lifestyles or continuing to support Israel.
Israel's only defence will be the nuclear option.  
The can of worms opens....


----------



## lucas (22 January 2009)

Although I don't necessarily trumpet the arguments in this link, it shows that there are other ways to view these UN Resolutions. _Please_, I only give the link to show there are other - no doubt biased but other - ways to view everything:

http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/10/UN-resolutions.pdf


----------



## lucas (22 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Only because you twist the argument.
> 
> Israel's only defence will be the nuclear option.
> The can of worms opens....




I twist nothing.

Surely, your latter statement is a defence of Israel's bullish stance.


----------



## rederob (22 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I only give the link to show there are other - no doubt biased but other - ways to view everything:



There are:
Lucas owns a property, and has a mortgage.
Rederob is homeless and, after being mistreated by the same bank as Lucas, is *given *Lucas's house by the bank.
Lucas can live elsewhere on the property, but the house is now Rederob's - no mortgage to pay!
Lucas takes the bank to court, who agree with Lucas that his treatment is unfair.
The bank has washed its hands of the matter.  Rederob owns the house and Lucas was given the right to remain on the property.
Rederob and Lucas can work it out between themselves.
Lucas is unhappy. He throws rocks at the house to annoy Rederob.
Rederob kills his pets.
Lucas throws more rocks at his house.
Rederob cuts off his power and water, and stops him from leaving the property to buy food, or visit the doctor.
Lucas goes to other neighbours for help.
They sneak him some scraps, and lots more rocks to throw at the house.
Lucas goes back to court, and time and again they agree he is hard done by, occasionally mediating some settlement that never last long.
Lucas throws more and more rocks, so Rederob bulldozes his lean to on the fenceline.
Lucas has surely learned a valuable lesson: Don't mess with me because there are harsh consequences.

Now, somewhere in the above there is a circular argument.
Or do we have "checkmate"?


----------



## Happy (22 January 2009)

> From ABC, 22 Jan. 09
> Hamas declares victory in Gaza
> By Middle East correspondent Ben Knight
> 
> ...




It is official now, Hamas won!


----------



## disarray (22 January 2009)

wayneL said:


> Not according to western governments. Icelandic assets were seized under terrorism laws in the UK, a bozo with a laser pen arrested under terrorism laws in the US, but I digress, let's just stick to the various dictionary definitions:




regardless of the recent tendency of western governments to apply the label "terror" to pretty much anything they wish to stamp out, it doen't change the fact that asassination and terrorism are different actions designed to achieve different outcomes, and so are different things.



> There is no question that the Israeli state  is employing terrorism to control the Palestinian. Equally, no question that Hamas is a terrorist organisation.




right. i never said otherwise.



> To believe that only one side is wrong and the other side is right is nothing short of an amazing bias based on.... whatever.




i don't think anyone has taken a position at any time in this entire thread that one side is "right" and the other is "wrong". i have never said the israelis are right, i just refute positions that make the palestinians out to be innocent victims of israeli aggression when the truth is both sides are guilty and have been for a long time.



> But I disagree with nickfish, you cannot ignore the recent 60 years of history. Y#ou can accept it as having happened and work within that frame, but you can't ignore it.




but you have to get over it or it get back to the endless "so and so did so and so" going back to the dawn of time and nothing will ever get resolved. each side has to drop the victim mentality and the claim on moral righteousness or nothing will change.



> Forgive my confusion, but your link verifies my point, then you go on on a dummy spit. What is your point here?




no it doesn't. you said the media ignores incidences where palestinians are on the receiving end of injustice, like the bulldozing of houses in their territories. i did a search on "palestinian home bulldozed" and get links from mainstream media outlets, wiki and blogs about palestinians homes being bulldozed. therefore the media doesn't ignore the palestinians, it actively reports on them.

and its hardly a dummy spit, i'm just starting to get a bit sick of the peanut gallery going "give me sources", "oh no not that source, its no good" like the only reliable and accurate source is one which suits your own arguments. like rowie going that public video statements by hamas leaders aren't conclusive, or rob saying israeli ministry sources are fairy tales, or you saying photos which are clear as day are photoshops or inconclusive, and then the points raised and references quoted are refuted with nothing more than unreferenced opinion. it's very lazy and demonstrates an extreme degree of narrow mindedness, which you then turn around and accuse everyone else of having. i find this behaviour to be extremely hypocritical and expect better from educated and intelligent people like yourselves.


----------



## lucas (22 January 2009)

rederob said:


> There are:
> Lucas owns a property, and has a mortgage.
> Rederob is homeless and, after being mistreated by the same bank as Lucas, is *given *Lucas's house by the bank.
> Lucas can live elsewhere on the property, but the house is now Rederob's - no mortgage to pay!
> ...




It's a clever analogy. I like clever. Thanks. Of course, it omits much, but it's only an analogy.

But you're wasting your time trying to prove to me that Israel is "a bad guy". I know that. What I have been painstakingly pointing out is that Israel is not "*the* bad guy".

And, yes, it's checkmate - but Hamas and most arab nations still want a replay. Tough. For Israel too.


----------



## lucas (23 January 2009)

I suppose most reading this thread will have read Gaddafi's recent comments. If not, here is a report:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/one-state-is-way-forward-gaddafi/2009/01/23/1232471539791.html



> One state is the way forward to peace in Mideast: Gaddafi
> 
> A combined one-state solution is the best way forward for Israel and the Palestinians to finally put an end to "perpetual war," Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has written in The New York Times.
> 
> ...




Interesting. Fat chance though I would think.

But I read an article recently (Time?) about the Jewish State being in peril internally simply because the number of Muslims inside Israel at present is increasing so fast that democratic voting might eventually turn against the Jews. I can't find the article again and I can only remember the gist of it, so don't quote me.

That would seem to make Gaddafi's idea unworkable given Israel's paranoia about being overrun???

Still, it's an alternative. And any alternative to the recent bloodletting has to be considered.


----------



## Happy (23 January 2009)

lucas said:


> But I read an article recently (Time?) about the Jewish State being in peril internally simply because the number of Muslims inside Israel at present is increasing so fast that democratic voting might eventually turn against the Jews. I can't find the article again and I can only remember the gist of it, so don't quote me.
> 
> That would seem to make Gaddafi's idea unworkable given Israel's paranoia about being overrun???
> 
> Still, it's an alternative. And any alternative to the recent bloodletting has to be considered.





Maybe one child policy for minorities, (while they are still minor of course).


----------



## rowie (23 January 2009)

What is the cost of human life?


----------



## rowie (23 January 2009)

Why does no one even question whether or not palestinians have a right to exist? Do they not have a right to exist? They are not Egyptians, Jordanians or Lebanese. They are palestinians, having been there for hundreds of years. Do they not have a right to exist???? No homeland whatsoever to call their own. Israel has a right to exist. DO THE PALESTINIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST?


----------



## nick2fish (23 January 2009)

Yes


----------



## Macquack (23 January 2009)

rowie said:


> Why does no one even question whether or not palestinians have a right to exist? Do they not have a right to exist? They are not Egyptians, Jordanians or Lebanese. They are palestinians, having been there for hundreds of years. Do they not have a right to exist???? No homeland whatsoever to call their own. Israel has a right to exist. DO THE PALESTINIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST?






lucas said:


> I am sorry - I think we are dealing here with a (let's face it) serious case of *mental deficiency*.
> 
> I take back all I have ever said. And I hope you seek and *receive the help you need very soon*.




Lucas, rowie asks a reasonable question.

How about you answer it, and cut the smart a*se bullsh*t.

My answer is YES.


----------



## lucas (23 January 2009)

Follow the thread. Realise this guy NEVER answers a question. His only raison d'etre is to bleat about how bad one side in this mess is treated.

You should know better. There is nothing reasonable about howling to the wind.

Your answer is playing to the gallery.


----------



## lucas (24 January 2009)

I mean, seriously, I posted a report that intended to take the thread in a direction that might add intelligent enquiry to the debate, and the best that we received from rowie was "What is the cost of human life?"

How do you deal with this? Answer it?

What? Two and sixpence?

The guy simply refuses to debate - and has done so consistently.

And you more intelligent souls who support this wailing should do some self-examination.


----------



## sinner (24 January 2009)

*How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas *

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html



> Moshav Tekuma, Israel
> 
> Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor's bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile's trajectory back to an "enormous, stupid mistake" made 30 years ago.
> 
> ...




Whole article is very long and VERY worth a read, good investigative journalism. Too long to paste here so clicky the linky.


----------



## rowie (24 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I mean, seriously, I posted a report that intended to take the thread in a direction that might add intelligent enquiry to the debate, and the best that we received from rowie was "What is the cost of human life?"
> 
> How do you deal with this? Answer it?
> 
> ...




LOL, classic.


----------



## lucas (25 January 2009)

I don't see what's classic about it. I am just fed up with your latter posts. You began in this thread being reasonable and open to argument, but now you ask fatuous questions such as what is the cost of human life? (not the "value" but the cost). How are we supposed to process this? I don't know. I can only suppose you are saying that if we do not agree with your position on the situation in Gaza we are somehow guilty of devaluing life. Gee thanks.

Five minutes later you ask "Why does no one even question whether or not palestinians have a right to exist?" Once again, I don't know what you mean. I assume you are saying that people should question this? But why? I would have thought it was a central plank of the argument for the Palestinian case; as central as the Israeli's right to exist. Why do you want to have people question this?

You then ask the rhetorical "Do they not have a right to exist????" - once again (a straw man somewhere?) assuming that people are suggesting that they don't have this right. I haven't read this anywhere; have you?

You then shout at us "DO THE PALESTINIANS HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST?"

By this time, I want to strangle you, not because I don't agree that they have the right to exist, but because in two posts you have managed to insult me, puzzle me, shout at me, and try to bludgeon me into agreeing with you.

I am going to leave this forum now because I am tired of the left-wing bias (I'm not even right-wing) and the constant belittling of anyone who has an even slightly opposing or to the right viewpoint. disarray's last post was spot on.

It seems that anyone with a left-wing bias can get away with ridiculing his opponent, and rowie has been happy to call forum members numbnats, gooses, twits, a joke, uneducated etc. at the drop of a hat. I notice he wasn't called into line. Even the moderator is guilty of questioning a forum member's training credentials - a new low in my opinion - though he was always fair to me.

There seems to be one rule for those of a particular persuasion and another for everybody else. You can think what you like.


----------



## sinner (25 January 2009)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7848768.stm

*Israel's use of white phosphorus alarms Gazans *


> Staring straight ahead and rocking steadily backwards and forwards in her hospital bed, Sabah Abu Halima lists the fate of each of her nine children.
> 
> "Abed, 14 years old, was decapitated," she says. "Shaheed, one year and three months, was in my arms when the fire took her…"
> 
> ...









Walk a mile in the other mans shoes. Imagine this raining down on you.


----------



## rederob (25 January 2009)

From The Times
January 24, 2009
*Israel admits using white phosphorous in attacks on Gaza*http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5575070.ece


----------



## wayneL (25 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I don't see what's classic about it. I am just fed up with your latter posts. You began in this thread being reasonable and open to argument, but now you ask fatuous questions such as what is the cost of human life? (not the "value" but the cost). How are we supposed to process this? I don't know. I can only suppose you are saying that if we do not agree with your position on the situation in Gaza we are somehow guilty of devaluing life. Gee thanks.
> 
> Five minutes later you ask "Why does no one even question whether or not palestinians have a right to exist?" Once again, I don't know what you mean. I assume you are saying that people should question this? But why? I would have thought it was a central plank of the argument for the Palestinian case; as central as the Israeli's right to exist. Why do you want to have people question this?
> 
> ...




OK so now this forum has been called:

Left wing

Right wing

Jew/Israel supporters

Hamas supporters

*To All*

The truth:

This forum supports free speech and individual posts reflect the views of that particular poster. If there is a weighting in numbers to one view over another, it purely reflects the forum demographics and not the agenda of the administrator or any moderators.

Th only thing that is moderated is what contravenes the forum's Code of Conduct, which is linked at the bottom of every page.

If we miss some instances of personal abuse (and we do, we're volunteers and aren't able to read every single post), there is always the report post button, which is the little icon on the top right of every post.

Just because somebody's posts are annoying or disagree, doesn't mean they break the rules, but the mod team encourages everyone to conduct reasonable debate on merit of argument.

Disagreement is bound to be a feature in a free and open forum and tempers get frayed, but so long as the forum rules are adhered to, all is well.

*To folks that have been moderated:*

As we don't publicize warnings and infractions, it may seem that you are the only one being singled out, whereas your opponent may have also been moderated, perhaps more so than yourself, there is just no way for you to know, just as there is no way for anyone else to know if you have been moderated.

Cheers


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (25 January 2009)

lucas said:


> I don't see what's classic about it. I am just fed up with your latter posts. You began in this thread being reasonable and open to argument, but now you ask fatuous questions such as what is the cost of human life? (not the "value" but the cost). How are we supposed to process this? I don't know. I can only suppose you are saying that if we do not agree with your position on the situation in Gaza we are somehow guilty of devaluing life. Gee thanks.
> 
> Five minutes later you ask "Why does no one even question whether or not palestinians have a right to exist?" Once again, I don't know what you mean. I assume you are saying that people should question this? But why? I would have thought it was a central plank of the argument for the Palestinian case; as central as the Israeli's right to exist. Why do you want to have people question this?
> 
> ...




On a bigger issue is the rise of anti-semitism in western countries which is being pushed and pushed by certain groups and others of the persuasion that israel should be destroyed. There is no reason for any jew to be attacked in another country just for being Jewish. If it were the other way the bleeding hearts would be out all over the place.


----------



## rowie (26 January 2009)

rederob said:


> From The Times
> January 24, 2009
> *Israel admits using white phosphorous in attacks on Gaza*http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5575070.ece




Well, the crime has been done, the perpetrators have admitted to it, unyet no one will be held accountable. Unfair, but thats the way it goes.


----------



## rederob (26 January 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> On a bigger issue is the rise of anti-semitism in western countries which is being pushed and pushed by certain groups and others of the persuasion that israel should be destroyed. There is no reason for any jew to be attacked in another country just for being Jewish. If it were the other way the bleeding hearts would be out all over the place.



The Jews in the US do pretty well.
Try being a Muslim.
War on terror is a cute code for war on Muslims!


----------



## nick2fish (26 January 2009)

rederob said:


> The Jews in the US do pretty well.
> Try being a Muslim.
> War on terror is a cute code for war on Muslims!




Try not to be so sensitive, it is a war on terror and the terrorists choose to use the Muslim flag to justify their attacks.

My personal feeling is that we are over the top on bending over backwards to appease Muslim religious and cultural sensitivities.


----------



## rederob (27 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Try not to be so sensitive, it is a war on terror and the terrorists choose to use the Muslim flag to justify their attacks.
> 
> My personal feeling is that we are over the top on bending over backwards to appease Muslim religious and cultural sensitivities.



The "war on terror" is simply a shibboleth the West now employ to justify a myriad of once illegal acts.
There is very little new to terrorism, except for the potential damage now possible through high explosives, biological or nuclear threats.  But "declaring" it a war apparently justifies any international boundary transgression or extrajudicaial assassination.
Terrorism is not, and was never, the sole domain of Muslims.  Right now in Sri Lanka we have the government bombing and shooting its own citizenry - probably the only country in the world doing so - on the basis that Tamils are terrorists.
To this day most Americans still think Iraqis were the terrorists behind 9/11, yet not a single Iraqi was involved: Most were Saudi's - a major oil supplier to the US.
You could always ask Cat Stevens (no longer known by this name) how nicely he was treated when he last went to the US, if you believe what you do about bending over backwards to appease.  Or Hazem El Masri and his lawyer who were harassed by 9 police officers in 2007.


----------



## robert toms (28 January 2009)

The Israelis call Hamas terrorists .
Responsible media call Hamas a militant organisation.
The US called anyone that opposed them in Iraq terrorists.
Responsible journalists called them insurgents.
What do we call the Bush administration...murderous criminals that loved torture.
We can all use use whatever language we like to denigrate people....but it does not add to the debate.


----------



## classer (28 January 2009)

rederob said:


> You could always ask Cat Stevens (no longer known by this name) how nicely he was treated when he last went to the US, if you believe what you do about bending over backwards to appease.




This nice perhaps?

Cat Stevens publicly supported the Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence for blasphemy against Salman Rushdie in 1989 (“The Qur’an makes it clear,” said the author of “Peace Train,” that “if someone defames the Prophet, then he must die”)


----------



## gordon2007 (28 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Try being a Muslim.




Last muslim I knew was the CEO of a very large insurance company that was located in Princeton, NJ (the states). I have first had knowledge that he actually asked the computer support people to NOT send a woman to his office. This was late 1990's. 

I also recall seeing many muslims working in pharmaceutal and engineering companies in Princeton. 

Kind of ruins that logic, eh?


----------



## noirua (28 January 2009)

classer said:


> This nice perhaps?
> 
> Cat Stevens publicly supported the Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence for blasphemy against Salman Rushdie in 1989 (“The Qur’an makes it clear,” said the author of “Peace Train,” that “if someone defames the Prophet, then he must die”)




Cat Stevens originally Steve Demetre Georgiou, changed name to Yusuf Islam in 1978 after becoming a Muslim. He did in fact deny supporting the fatwa against Salman Rushdie in an interview, saying he was misinterpreted.


----------



## classer (28 January 2009)

noirua said:


> He did in fact deny supporting the fatwa against Salman Rushdie in an interview, saying he was misinterpreted.






> May 23, 1989: "Cat Stevens Gives Support To Call for Death of Rushdie," by Craig R. Whitney
> LONDON, May 22 -- The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ''I would have hoped that it'd be the real thing.''
> 
> The singer, who adopted the name Yusuf Islam when he converted to Islam, made the remark during a panel discussion of British reactions to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's call for Mr. Rushdie to be killed for allegedly blaspheming Islam in his best-selling novel ''The Satanic Verses.'' He also said that if Mr. Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, ''I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like.''
> ...




Misrepresented.....hmmmmm.....yes ,yes  misrepresented....no doubt at all


----------



## Bobby (28 January 2009)

Classer ,

That sure slowed down the procrustean apologists  :

Well done ..


----------



## noirua (29 January 2009)

I suppose we should accept what Wikipedia says about Cat Stevens, together with the numerous citing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens


----------



## disarray (29 January 2009)

sorry noirua but the rule here is wikipedia is only a reliable source if it supports your arguments, if it doesn't then its biased and you're obviously ignorant and need to do further reading from "approved" sources (ie. those that support whatever you are trying to say).

btw the EU envoy blames HAMAS for the humanitarian disaster



> Humanitarian aid chief Louis Michel called the destruction left by Israel's offensive "abominable", but said Hamas bore "overwhelming responsibility".
> 
> He said there would be no dialogue with the "terrorist" movement until it gave up violence and recognised Israel...
> 
> "At this time we have to also recall the overwhelming responsibility of Hamas," he said.




this thread is going on longer than the actual conflict. it like M*A*S*H or something.



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> Terrorism is not, and was never, the sole domain of Muslims




no, but it is very deeply rooted in islamic teaching and is justified by the actions of the prophet mohmmed (who muslims consider the "perfect human", a rapist, paedopile, terrorist, slaver, nasty piece of work etc. etc.)



> from the Hadith of Sahih Bukhari
> 
> Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
> Narrated Abu Huraira:
> ...




once again its all topsy turvy, we in the west are consistently accused of racism and vilification while offering muslim immigrants access to our society and all the first world employment, educational, medical and leisure opportunities, yet the fundamental teachings of islam which all muslims must adhere to remain free from criticism. should a westerner dare to criticise then not only are they met with death threats and fatwahs from the islamic world, they are met with  hate speech charges from their own legal institutions which are desperate to maintain the illusion of multicultural harmony and are willing to trample our rights to free speech to do it. on the flipside islamic clerics can rant and rave about bringing down our institutions, killing jews, homosexuals and apostates, beating women and other atrocities with what seems to be impunity.



			
				wiki on undercover mosque said:
			
		

> Undercover Mosque generated controversy because it contained footage of British imams making the following statements:
> 
> Dr. Ijaz Mian on the subject of non-Muslim laws: “You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir [non-Muslim]…[w]e have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others.”
> 
> ...




why is this state of affairs allowed to continue? who is responsible for this hypocrisy? will it really have to take the election of extreme right wing governments to take action against this daily treason against our values and our way of life? will this thread ever die? :


----------



## nick2fish (29 January 2009)

disarray said:


> will this thread ever die? :





With posts like that I sincerely hope not


----------



## rederob (29 January 2009)

disarray said:


> will this thread ever die? :



The thread is about Israel in Gaza.
When Israel returns Gaza to Palestinian rule, I suspect the thread could end.


----------



## Terry Dactil (29 January 2009)

> When Israel returns Gaza to Palestinian rule, I suspect the thread could end.




In 2005 Israel removed its settlers from Gaza, bulldozed their homes and demolished its military bases. Palestinians have been running Gaza since then.

Didn't you notice?


----------



## rederob (29 January 2009)

Terry Dactil said:


> In 2005 Israel removed its settlers from Gaza, bulldozed their homes and demolished its military bases. Palestinians have been running Gaza since then.
> 
> Didn't you notice?



I noticed that Hamas, who won power in 2007 through democratic elections, was shunned internationally and by the Palestinian Authority.
This led immediately to sanctions, which were progressively intensified by Israel as a form of collective punishment, such that most Gazans are now reliant on the UN for their meagre existence.
The Palestinians of Gaza have no control over their borders, airspace or external trade.
Gaza remains unrecognised legally, and is in conflict with the Palestinian Authority who have nominal control over the territory.
To say that the Palestinians have been running Gaza since 2005 is an excellent example of "spin".


----------



## sinner (30 January 2009)

Click link for video 

*Turkish PM storms off in Gaza row*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/davos/7859417.stm



> Turkey's prime minister has stormed off the stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos after a heated debate on Gaza with Israel's president.
> 
> Recep Tayyip Erdogan clashed with Shimon Peres, whose voice had risen as he made an impassioned defence of Israel's actions, jabbing his finger.
> 
> ...




Please examine the statements in red made by the Israeli president.

Then please read this article

*Gaza's humanitarian crisis *
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7191359.stm



> A group of UK-based human rights and development organisations have called for fundamental policy changes towards the Gaza Strip by Israel, the international community and the West Bank-based Palestinian leadership.
> 
> Their report details what are calling the worst humanitarian crisis in the strip since Israel occupied it in the 1967 war, and describe it as a man-made disaster resulting from the isolation and blockade of Gaza after its take-over by Hamas militants last June.
> 
> ...




Is that enough of a why for the Israeli president? Seems according to independent 3rd parties (press, humanitarian orgs, the UN, Jimmy Carter, etc) there *WAS* a siege and there *WAS* starvation in Gaza...

Ignore the Turkish doofus, they have their own **** to answer for with the Kurds.


----------



## nick2fish (30 January 2009)

Just sounds like Israel are saying leave us alone and we will leave you alone.
The blockage refers to Israels borders which have been closed because of security fears


----------



## rederob (30 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Just sounds like Israel are saying leave us alone and we will leave you alone.
> The blockage refers to Israels borders which have been closed because of security fears



You really have no clue at all.
If you did you might wonder why the UN can't get their supplies in, why doctors can't get in to treat the injured, or why patients can't get out for essential treatments, or why water and fuel supplies are affected.


----------



## Terry Dactil (30 January 2009)

Redrob:
Gaza also has a border with Egypt.
Israel does not control that border.
Maybe it's another thing you failed to notice?


----------



## rederob (31 January 2009)

Terry Dactil said:


> Redrob:
> Gaza also has a border with Egypt.
> Israel does not control that border.
> Maybe it's another thing you failed to notice?



Perhaps you fail to understand the influence that Israel has over Egypt as a result of their peace accord.  Israel controls the number of police Egypt can maintain (750) along the Gaza border, and exercises de facto control over the Rafah crossing.
There is no doubt that Egypt could "give" a little in the present climate.  However, Hamas is no friend of Egypt.  And Egypt's formal corridors to Gaza lie with dialogue with the Palestinian Authority, which is trying to bring Hamas undone.


----------



## nick2fish (31 January 2009)

rederob said:


> You really have no clue at all.
> If you did you might wonder why the UN can't get their supplies in, why doctors can't get in to treat the injured, or why patients can't get out for essential treatments, or why water and fuel supplies are affected.




Nupe....Don't wonder bout it at all. Cause I know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqs...wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

We all can read, but some of us are just more subjective than others


----------



## Cooks (31 January 2009)

This has to be one of the most interesting threads I have read. A few things I will add.

1. This isn't a war about Israel and Hummus (sorry Hammas), this is war about Fundamental Islam and the western world. For everyone that supports Hammas (note: they were voted by their people) , it is the same thing as supporting terror. Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Saudis, West Bank, all want Hammas out as they pose a big threat not just to Israel, but to themselves with the possibility of a Fundamentalist up roar within their own countries. Get this - Their own Muslim brothers / countries want them out.

2. A lot more can be written, but my thoughts are well represented in these very interesting videos:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=nI5WoXpmPiM&feature=related
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=y9dXGJ2rYdA&feature=related

3. I love Muslims, Jews and respect all religions, but I think the fundametalists give the larger majority a bad name


----------



## Cooks (31 January 2009)

another good one 
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4&feature=related


----------



## rederob (31 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Nupe....Don't wonder bout it at all. Cause I know.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqs...wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
> 
> We all can read, but some of us are just more subjective than others



Aren't you the lucky one.
So the second intifada is responsible for Israel continuing to deny Gazans basic human rights?
As I said, you haven't got a clue. And your link clearly demonstrates your depth of understanding of the complexities at hand.


----------



## rowie (31 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Nupe....Don't wonder bout it at all. Cause I know.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqs...wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip
> 
> We all can read, but some of us are just more subjective than others




Dont see how your pasting of the 2nd intifada link supports your argument. As stated, it is the continued struggle of palestinians against the occupation.


----------



## nick2fish (31 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Aren't you the lucky one.
> So the second intifada is responsible for Israel continuing to deny Gazans basic human rights?
> As I said, you haven't got a clue. And your link clearly demonstrates your depth of understanding of the complexities at hand.




Here's another couple of clueless statements for ya

The suffering of the Palestine people will never cease while Hamas is in control
The Israel-Gaza strip conflict will never be resolved while Hamas is in control
The rocket attacks and tunnel building that led to the border blockages will not stop while Hamas is in charge
No aid from Egypt will be forthcoming while Hamas is the governing body in Gaza
And Israel blockages of Gaza border areas will never be lifted while Hamas is the ruling entity in Palestine
More clueless statements later, cheers


----------



## rowie (31 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Here's another couple of clueless statements for ya
> 
> The suffering of the Palestine people will never cease while Hamas is in control
> The Israel-Gaza strip conflict will never be resolved while Hamas is in control
> ...




Nick, first the Palestinian Authority and Fatah were Israels enemies, now Hamas (democratically elected) are their enemy. If Hamas are ousted and replaced by another authority, who is to say that they wont be recognised as well? You have to reach a stage where you question the intention of Israel for opposing any authority recognised by the Palestinians. Mind you, Hamas were at one stage in the past created and funded by Mossad and Israel themselves. They funded them and created them to form a fundamentalist movement to undermine Arafat and the PA. When will all this stop? When Hamas stops firing rockets or are ousted? I highly doubt that...


----------



## rederob (31 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Here's another couple of clueless statements for ya



Please feel free to throw in as many as you want.
You don't have a clue, it is abundantly clear.
Ultimately, the solution lies with concessions from Israel.  Not from Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority, as they have lost much already and seem willing to lose even more to gain some control over their destiny.

And just to emphasise your stupidity in this tete-a-tete, the "blockade" began almost immediately Hamas was democratically elected.  Tunnels wee built to counter the blockade.  If Israel was half smart they would open the Rafah border and allow full inspections of all goods etc entering Gaza, rather than lose control of what gets in through a network of tunnels.  Instead Israel plays a political game, whereby they can attack Gaza any time they choose on the pretext that tunnels are providing Hamas the rockets and weapons it uses against them.


----------



## IFocus (31 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Please feel free to throw in as many as you want.
> You don't have a clue, it is abundantly clear.
> *Ultimately, the solution lies with concessions from Israel.  Not from Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority*, as they have lost much already and seem willing to lose even more to gain some control over their destiny.
> 
> *And just to emphasise your stupidity in this tete-a-tete,* the "blockade" began almost immediately Hamas was democratically elected.  Tunnels wee built to counter the blockade.  If Israel was half smart they would open the Rafah border and allow full inspections of all goods etc entering Gaza, rather than lose control of what gets in through a network of tunnels.  Instead Israel plays a political game, whereby they can attack Gaza any time they choose on the pretext that tunnels are providing Hamas the rockets and weapons it uses against them.




Strong statements Rederob but then I guess that's what the mess digs up.

If I can just point out that Hamas is a organization that is backed by Iran in an Arab part of the world. 

I struggle to understand your logic when looking at Iran's intentions.

I think the whole thing is beyond a solution full stop


----------



## rederob (31 January 2009)

IFocus said:


> If I can just point out that Hamas is a organization that is backed by Iran in an Arab part of the world.
> 
> I struggle to understand your logic when looking at Iran's intentions.
> 
> I think the whole thing is beyond a solution full stop



Thanks for your thoughts IFocus.
There's a few thousand years history involved in the Palestinian issue, and a few people here can't even work out more recent events and their implications.
This thread can explore what Israel's role is in resolving what's disputed, or it can take the opposite side.
Either way, all parties must ultimately agree on a course of action leading to a lasting peace.  
Israel is delusional if it thinks that a mere withdrawal from occupied territories is the recipe for success.  
And so is Hamas if it thinks it will ever get rid of the Jews in Israel.
However, I don't think this issue is beyond a solution.

As for Iran backing Hamas, I say "so what".  
Iran's backing meant diddly squat in the recent conflict.

As for "Iran's intentions", I'm not sure what you mean.  Iran will be a small bit player in the region, well behind Saudi Arabia and, in 5-6 years time, probably behind Iraq as well.
]


----------



## nick2fish (31 January 2009)

rederob said:


> Please feel free to throw in as many as you want.
> You don't have a clue, it is abundantly clear.
> 
> And just to emphasise your stupidity in this tete-a-tete, the "blockade" began almost immediately Hamas was democratically elected.  Tunnels wee built to counter the blockade.  If Israel was half smart they would open the Rafah border and allow full inspections of all goods etc entering Gaza, rather than lose control of what gets in through a network of tunnels.  Instead Israel plays a political game, whereby they can attack Gaza any time they choose on the pretext that tunnels are providing Hamas the rockets and weapons it uses against them.




Oh are you talking about the Total blockage (2007) not the Military blockage  in (2000)
A Blockade is defined by Encyclopedia Britannica as an "an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts

Yeah you right on that one. 
And Israel aren't half smart....they think that keeping the blockage(total) in tact will somehow weaken Hamas power in the Gaza....

Any thoughts on my other points or is that eye of yours still having trouble opening ?


----------



## rederob (31 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Any thoughts on my other points or is that eye of yours still having trouble opening ?



If I had to devote time to all your errors of fact it would become an occupation, with abundant overtime.


----------



## Macquack (31 January 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Oh are you talking about the Total blockage (2007) not the Military blockage  in (2000)
> A Blockade is defined by Encyclopedia Britannica as an "an act of war by which a belligerent prevents access to or departure from a defined part of the enemy’s coasts
> 
> Yeah you right on that one.
> ...




nick2fish, you highlight an anomaly here.

Hamas cease their "act of war" of firing rockets into Israel.

Yet, Israel continue their "act of war" in the blockade of the Gaza Strip!


----------



## nick2fish (31 January 2009)

Nice pickup Macquack, but have the rockets really stopped? One fired from Gaza into Israel on the 29/01, prompting Israeli retaliation.


----------



## nick2fish (1 February 2009)

rederob said:


> If I had to devote time to all your errors of fact it would become an occupation, with abundant overtime.




Well Rederob,   If I may call you by your post name, you have made your first mistake in a game of chess, by personalizing yourself with your opponent. 
The above quote is very funny to me...
But it is amusing because I do not live in a war-torn country and my relatives are not dieing in view of where I stand. 
I am not suffering a hunger of which I cannot Stand. 
Your posts to my goading are, in my view a synopsis of the situation we are so vehemently discussing.
Or are we????????????? 
We go home every day to a comfortable dwelling assured that even though we invest in shares, we are safe cause of the nice neighborhood we reside in. 
But no we can't be content with that even though we have seen millions die in Africa on our 48" Plasma, we have to rant and rave about a conflict which has had its infancy in before time, has had its modern footprint turned all muddy and slippery and the end result IS the loss of innocents. 
More innocents to follow I predict. 
Now I assume you are a pretty Sharp man Mr Rederob, because you are obviously an investor, but would you invest in an Hamas government. 
Could you really see if you were on the board of directors that this way forward was for the benefit of your company and shareholders. 
Would not some light surface in the deep dark caverns of was once a brain say "Lets Talk" (maybe even lets) work it out..........
But no cause the Palestine cause,..... is a far greater call than just the sick and the dieing isn't it,.... or even the land we live in

This is my last go on this topic, because for now the invasion has ceased, forces withdraw, retaliation on provocation , or so the story goes............ 

Rederob.............Peace....................................................................

Cheers


----------



## GumbyLearner (6 February 2009)

*UN backs down on 'school massacre' in Gaza*

THE UN has retracted claims over one of the biggest controversies in the Gaza war, admitting that an Israeli mortar attack that killed 43 people did not hit a school run by a UN agency.

The January 6 incident, described at the time as the "school massacre", figured prominently in accusations that Israel committed war crimes in the deaths of hundreds of civilians during the war. 

A statement issued yesterday by the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Human Affairs acknowledged that it had wrongly blamed the deaths at the time on the "shelling of the UNRWA (Relief and Works Agency) school". 

"The humanitarian co-ordinator would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school," the statement said. 

The clarification came several days after a journalist for Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, Patrick Martin, interviewed Palestinians living near the school and a teacher, who told him that none of the casualties were in the school but on the street outside. 

In a television interview the day of the incident at a Gaza hospital where casualties were brought, the UNRWA operations director in Gaza, John Ging, an Irish national, did not explicitly say the shells had hit the school but he left that impression. 

"Those in the school were all families seeking refuge," he said. "There's nowhere safe in Gaza." 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25013734-601,00.html


----------



## robert toms (6 February 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> *UN backs down on 'school massacre' in Gaza*
> 
> THE UN has retracted claims over one of the biggest controversies in the Gaza war, admitting that an Israeli mortar attack that killed 43 people did not hit a school run by a UN agency.
> 
> ...




I see that you quote the Australian as your source....can you do better than That ?
The foreign editor of the Australian is one Greg Sheridan...he that spends holidays in Israel.I have heard him in private conversations and his credibility regarding the Middle East is zero...due to his loyalties.
He also knew all about WMDs in Iraq and  knows what a monumental danger Iran is to world peace.
Can you get a more objective source ?


----------



## darnsmall (6 February 2009)

Noam chomsky, has a speech on youtube about this topic. I haven't finished watching it yet and haven't referenced his claims against Israel as yet. But he talks about some interesting stuff that is going on in that region; not surprising really.

One thing that is surprising, is that we still discuss this topic after all these years. It's still misrepresented in the media, it still has no solution, and we still go around in the same circles.

I'm a little confused as to why Israel hasn't gone down the path of mass genocide, they're trying to do it in a slow and measured way. But if you can just waltz into another country and attack, and nothing happens...and if you can do it again...again nothing happens. Why not just solve the problem by rounding up all the people you want to get rid of, and get rid of them?

I'm sure America will support them down this road and they can all claim they're just trying to pre-emptively protect their land.
I won't be surprised the day Iran gets a nuke and just drops it on them. I think they're the only ones that will end up doing anything. And then maybe the Jews can all move into America and call that their home. Why not make the next US pres; Jewish.

I see no point in protesting against Israel since, at the end of the day we in Australia aren't going to base an election around this. Labor tried to yank that thread with Iraq previously and got them no where. And at the end of the day the only change will come through polotics. It will either come from within Israel as they vote for a political party that wants to resolve the issue with Palestine and Islam, or it will come from everyone around the globe voting in parties that will take a stance against Israel; probably only a rare chance if they do go down the genocide path...so in summary; nothing will happen, nothing will change, we simply don't care enough to do anything.


----------



## The Muffin Man (6 February 2009)

Hmm, so it seems the IDF did not hit the UN school. Just another example of the misinformation coming from that area. Oh how can people get it all so wrong? It's done on purpose people, to skew your view on one side or another.


----------



## rederob (6 February 2009)

The Muffin Man said:


> Hmm, so it seems the IDF did not hit the UN school. Just another example of the misinformation coming from that area. Oh how can people get it all so wrong? It's done on purpose people, to skew your view on one side or another.



This is the UN statement:


> *Protection of Civilians*
> Clarification: While correctly reported on 6 January that Israeli shells landed outside an UNRWA school in Jabalia, resulting in an initial estimate of 30 fatalities, the Situation Report of 7 January referred to ‘the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabalia.’ The Humanitarian Coordinator would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school. According to UNRWA, the number of fatalities is over 40, many of them among the 1,368 people who had taken refuge in the school.



So long as refugees were killed outside the school it's OK?
Almost 1400 Palestinians were killed in the conflict, contrasted with 14 Israelis (including 3 civilians).
The Cooks and Muffin Men keenly overlook a kill ratio of 100:1 - that's OK!
Or the kill ratio against Palestinian children alone of 30:1 - not bad at all!

Getting back to the media article, it's moot to note that it leads as "UN backs down...", whereas there was only ever a "clarification".  The pro-Israeli media have now cleverly conned readers into thinking that maybe the people killed outside the school were the bad guys after all.  The evidence suggests they were mostly those who had previously sought refuge there.


----------



## shaunQ (6 February 2009)

There can be no denying that Israel is one of the most racist and repressive first-world countries in the world, and hides their atrocities with their fantastic propaganda machine.


----------



## darnsmall (9 February 2009)

rederob said:


> This is the UN statement:
> So long as refugees were killed outside the school it's OK?
> Almost 1400 Palestinians were killed in the conflict, contrasted with 14 Israelis (including 3 civilians).
> The Cooks and Muffin Men keenly overlook a kill ratio of 100:1 - that's OK!
> ...




Personally I think its makes no difference if they attack UN facilities or not. The UN is useless, what are they going to do anyway, a resolution? lol America will stop that.
As for people being outside and inside a building getting killed...pfft thats cute, maybe we should blame them for standing outside durring a war; idiots. Maybe we should blame all the peeps who lost their lives in the fires yesterday for getting in the way of the flames


----------



## rederob (9 February 2009)

darnsmall said:


> Personally I think its makes no difference if they attack UN facilities or not. The UN is useless, what are they going to do anyway, a resolution? lol America will stop that.



There are such things as "war crimes".
You don't seem to have the intellect to work that one out, and I'm not going to get in your way.


> As for people being outside and inside a building getting killed...pfft thats cute, maybe we should blame them for standing outside durring a war; idiots. Maybe we should blame all the peeps who lost their lives in the fires yesterday for getting in the way of the flames



Some demented logic flowing here.
If you want a reasoned response, provide a credible argument.
The answer you weren't seeking was that innocent people *never *deserve to die, no matter the instrument.
I suspect your IQ matches your calling.


----------



## disarray (9 February 2009)

rederob said:


> There are such things as "war crimes".
> You don't seem to have the intellect to work that one out, and I'm not going to get in your way.
> Some demented logic flowing here.
> If you want a reasoned response, provide a credible argument.
> ...




you never let it rest will you? you just have to beat your chest and continue to do your best to jam your extemely limited vision of a complex issue down everyones throat.

your narrow mindedness and unwillingness to even listen to the other side of the argument makes it all but pointless to have any kind of civil and reasonable discussion with you. you consistently resort to child like namecalling and accusations of ignorance while dismissing out of hand the many valid (and referenced) points that have been presented to you. in response you have the gall to launch into one sided emotional tirades about how one side is like the spawn of satan and the other is some spotless enlightened peaceloving people who are on the receiving end of an unwarranted genocidal holocaust. if i didn't know better i'd suspect you were a raging anti-semite.

your hypcorisy is staggering, your inability to see any other side of the argument, or even concede that one exists, demonstrates a severe inability to apply basic critical thought (not to say manners), and quite frankly i find you pathetic.

good day to you sir.


----------



## darnsmall (9 February 2009)

rederob said:


> There are such things as "war crimes".
> You don't seem to have the intellect to work that one out, and I'm not going to get in your way.
> Some demented logic flowing here.
> If you want a reasoned response, provide a credible argument.
> ...




Actually an interesting argument you raise here...are there such things as war crimes? If the US is behind you and says its not a crime; then is it? If you have the power and you are the victor, is it a war crime, or is it collateral, or some other wankery for "I don't really care cause I can kick your ass to and hand it to you if you like...try me"

Quite morally right, no one deserves to die...try telling that to the US when they're trying to sure up a few $trillion in oil though. Doesn't quite hold much weight. 

I find it a little hypocritical to condemn Israel, I don't agree with them and think they're governing body comes across as being pretty messed up. And I imagine given the chance if the tables were turned the Palestinians wouldn't be too far off doing the sam. End of the day, I'm an Aussie citizen who's government isn't going to do a damn thing about the situation, and won't risk hurting our relationship with the $US. And so its a little insulting to pretend you give a **** about people being slaughtered while you live a very comfortable safe life in a country that is part of the problem. Jump on the bandwagon and get on board the Axis of Freedom and enjoy the gravy.


----------



## rederob (9 February 2009)

disarray said:


> your hypcorisy is staggering, your inability to see any other side of the argument, or even concede that one exists, demonstrates a severe inability to apply basic critical thought (not to say manners), and quite frankly i find you pathetic.



I'm not sure what planet you were on when you posted, but my response was, inter alia, measured against a post including this sense:


darnsmall said:


> As for people being outside and inside a building getting killed...pfft thats cute, maybe we should blame them for standing outside durring a war; idiots. Maybe we should *blame *all the peeps who lost their lives in the fires yesterday for getting in the way of the flames



Why would we "blame" anyone for being architects of their own deaths when matters largely outside their control were the cause.  To even contemplate including bush fire victims at this sensitive and emotional point in time is a touch callous, at best.
And you are accusing me of not being able to apply critical thought.

The interesting thing about war crimes is that they remain so until prosecution lapses, effectively meaning until the perpetrators are dead.  Curious things happen in international affairs and the balance of power today may well be different in 10 or 20 years time.  In years ahead America may not be able to "control" who is brought before it.  So it is not inconceivable that the Chinese in 2030 have GW Bush in front of it for invading Iraq.


----------



## IFocus (9 February 2009)

Rederob apologies for the time delay in replying 




rederob said:


> Thanks for your thoughts IFocus.
> There's a few thousand years history involved in the Palestinian issue, and a few people here can't even work out more recent events and their implications.
> This thread can explore what Israel's role is in resolving what's disputed, or it can take the opposite side.
> Either way, all parties must ultimately agree on a course of action leading to a lasting peace.]




Unfortunately I don't think peace is the aim of the waring parties more like might is right. Its important to understand just who the waring parties are.




> Israel is delusional if it thinks that a mere withdrawal from occupied territories is the recipe for success.
> And so is Hamas if it thinks it will ever get rid of the Jews in Israel.
> However, I don't think this issue is beyond a solution.




Middle East solutions come from when one side is at a disadvantage and must negotiate to survive only might is right.




> As for Iran backing Hamas, I say "so what".
> Iran's backing meant diddly squat in the recent conflict.




With Hamas being an Iran proxy it can only survive due to financial and training support from Iran. There comes serious obligations attached with that. Hamas is a vehicle for Iran to meddle / gain influence in the middle east and provide some distractions away its own issues.



> As for "Iran's intentions", I'm not sure what you mean.  Iran will be a small bit player in the region, well behind Saudi Arabia and, in 5-6 years time, probably behind Iraq as well.




Iran is not supporting Hamas so it can make peace with Israel. It is supporting Hamas because they will make war on Israel.

Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas because its an Iran / Syrian instrument. Israel will strike at Iran  by attacking Hamas.

Its not a Israel / Palestinian conflict, the Palestinian's are just cannon fodder for the aims of regional players.

Its a mess


----------



## darnsmall (10 February 2009)

rederob said:


> I'm not sure what planet you were on when you posted, but my response was, inter alia, measured against a post including this sense:
> Why would we "blame" anyone for being architects of their own deaths when matters largely outside their control were the cause.  To even contemplate including bush fire victims at this sensitive and emotional point in time is a touch callous, at best.
> And you are accusing me of not being able to apply critical thought.
> 
> The interesting thing about war crimes is that they remain so until prosecution lapses, effectively meaning until the perpetrators are dead.  Curious things happen in international affairs and the balance of power today may well be different in 10 or 20 years time.  In years ahead America may not be able to "control" who is brought before it.  So it is not inconceivable that the Chinese in 2030 have GW Bush in front of it for invading Iraq.




lol, yeah and then we'll wait to see if anyone hold China to theirs, and so on and so on...and highly unlikely

If I was rich, powerful, and invading other countries, attacking minorities, then yeah I'd probably blame them for getting in the way of my bullets, rockets, bombs, tanks, etc. I think you kind of missed my point, not to matter. And next time I wait a little bit before poking fun at a disaster, fires, invasions, oil, financial crisis; its all a bit too soon isn't it.


----------



## rowie (11 February 2009)

http://www.theage.com.au/world/hamas-ready-for-long-truce-20090210-83h4.html


----------



## sinner (14 February 2009)

http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=35689

*Rabin’s legacy: Protesters' accounts show Israel ‘breaking the bones’ of peaceful demonstrators*



> Salfit – Ma’an – Israeli forces are carrying out a policy of shooting at the legs of peaceful demonstrators who protest the Israeli separation wall each Friday in towns across the West Bank, demonstrators are reporting.
> 
> The accounts of the Palestinian demonstrators who have been wounded by Israeli fire in recent weeks are raising the legacy of the first Palestinian Intifada, when Israeli then-defense minister Yitzak Rabin ordered his soldiers to “break the bones” of young protesters.
> 
> ...




If anyone was curious, Ma'an news is considered the number one source for independant news out of Palestine by international press agencies since the Israeli government severely curtails press freedoms in the occupied territories.


----------



## sinner (20 March 2009)

Must read...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7952603.stm

*Israel troops admit Gaza abuses *



> An Israeli military college has printed damning soldiers' accounts of the killing of civilians and vandalism during recent operations in Gaza.
> 
> One account tells of a sniper killing a mother and children at close range whom troops had told to leave their home.
> 
> ...


----------



## gooner (10 March 2010)

Maybe slightly off topic as East Jeruasalem is not Gaza, but read today that Israel is building on Palestinian land in East Jerusalem. Does make you wonder if the Israelis really want peace or will not stop until they have all the West Bank as part of Israel


----------



## Julia (10 March 2010)

I'd bet on the latter.


----------



## gooner (24 May 2010)

In the news at the moment

We have expelled an Israeli diplomat due to Israel forging Australian passports and putting our citizens at risk

A humanitarian flotilla is trying to deliver aid to Gaza but Israel has promised to repel the boats.

Elvis Costello has cancelled shows.

Not good news for the Israelis, but guess that comes with the territory when you occupy and oppress.


----------



## gav (24 May 2010)

gooner said:


> Maybe slightly off topic as East Jeruasalem is not Gaza, but read today that Israel is building on Palestinian land in East Jerusalem. Does make you wonder if the Israelis really want peace or will not stop until they have all the West Bank as part of Israel




Is this area of East Jerusalem part of the land Israel claimed when they won the 6 Day War?


----------



## gooner (24 May 2010)

gav said:


> Is this area of East Jerusalem part of the land Israel claimed when they won the 6 Day War?




Gav

Yes it is.


----------



## gav (24 May 2010)

gooner said:


> Gav
> 
> Yes it is.




Then isn't that like Australia whinging about the Japanese hunting whales in "Australian waters", when the rest of the world does not recognise these waters as being Australian?


----------



## gooner (24 May 2010)

gav said:


> Then isn't that like Australia whinging about the Japanese hunting whales in "Australian waters", when the rest of the world does not recognise these waters as being Australian?




No one recognises Israel's annexation of East Jeruasalem, just like no one recognises Australia's annexation of international waters. So yes, there is a similarity there.


----------



## DB008 (24 May 2010)




----------



## gav (25 May 2010)

Hi Dannyboy,

Can you post a similar map that shows the Aboriginal Loss of Land over the past few hundred years.  Cheers.


----------



## Happy (25 May 2010)

Or loss of Australian influence on land that is taken over by overseas interests?

(Taking into account that some Australians have above all allegiance to other interests)


----------



## gooner (25 May 2010)

gav said:


> Hi Dannyboy,
> 
> Can you post a similar map that shows the Aboriginal Loss of Land over the past few hundred years.  Cheers.




Fairly weak attempt at drawing a parallel - do you really think Australia is similar? When was the last time we dropped phospohorus bombs on Redfern?


----------



## skcots (25 May 2010)

Poor Palestinians.  I had some friends work in the gaza strip and apparently on the ground it is far worse then the you think.


----------



## disarray (25 May 2010)

gooner said:


> Fairly weak attempt at drawing a parallel - do you really think Australia is similar? When was the last time we dropped phospohorus bombs on Redfern?




probably the last time ATSIC called for the extermination of white australia and launched endless rocket attacks against the CBD.

oh wait ......


----------



## Macquack (1 June 2010)

*Israeli raid: crimes against humanity ?*
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2914730.htm

Israel up to its usual crimes against humanity.

How soft are the Israeli commandos? They cop a few punches from passengers aboard the aid convoy they raided (in international waters) and retaliate by killing at least 10 and wounding many more.


----------



## awg (1 June 2010)

Macquack said:


> *
> How soft are the Israeli commandos? They cop a few punches from passengers aboard the aid convoy they raided (in international waters) and retaliate by killing at least 10 and wounding many more.*



*

The footage I saw showed them getting seriously iron-barred.

If you attack commandos in that way, they open fire.

stray bullets would have wounded many 

The fault lies higher up, operation was flawed, and screwed up

It must be an infuriating embarrasment for many in Israel

Piracy is what comes to mind, but have heard very specific Maritime regs apply to
blockade running situations

They are certainly managing to tee of so many different countries..bad politics*


----------



## doctorj (2 June 2010)

awg said:


> The footage I saw showed them getting seriously iron-barred.
> 
> If you attack commandos in that way, they open fire.
> 
> ...



In the dead of night and in international waters, you are boarded by boat and helicopter by people with guns.  Exactly what other outcome did those ordering the mission and those planning it (the commandos themselves) expect?  Shooting people because they have iron bars or knives or whatever, when you invade their ships is not justifiable at all.  It's time for Israel to be cut loose.


----------



## gooner (2 June 2010)

doctorj said:


> In the dead of night and in international waters, you are boarded by boat and helicopter by people with guns.  Exactly what other outcome did those ordering the mission and those planning it (the commandos themselves) expect?  Shooting people because they have iron bars or knives or whatever, when you invade their ships is not justifiable at all.  It's time for Israel to be cut loose.




Exactly, when the Somalis do it, it is piracy. No difference with Israel. The Paliestinans throw stones, Israel responds with F16's.  Israel has become a pariah state - the US remains its only strong supporter


----------



## disarray (3 June 2010)

Killed flotilla protestors expressed desire for martyrdom 

so you've got a bunch of hamas followers and associated jihadists teaming up with bleeding heart lefties to run the blockade at gaza, despite the fact hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, openly declares their intentions to ethnically cleanse palestine of the jews and has also been blockaded by egypt on the other side.

so the flotilla approaches gaza, ignores israeli requests to dock in a nearby port where the convoy can be searched for weapons and then the aid distributed, and keeps going to run the blockade.

israel responds with heli-commandos, the people on the boat mob them while armed with metal bars, knives, slingshots, molotovs and modified paintball guns, so the commandos return fire.



here's a little clip about some of the "peace activists".  Khaibar was a massacre of jews committed by mohammed in between plundering treasure, raping women, enslaving children etc. etc. for those interested





> right now we have one of two happy endings, martyrdom or we reach gaza




so how would you deal with people who express that kind of ideology? we hate you, we want to kill you all, we will not negotiate and we are happy to die for our cause.

hey maybe more talks will do the trick?


----------



## wayneL (3 June 2010)

disarray said:


> so how would you deal with people who express that kind of ideology? we hate you, we want to kill you all, we will not negotiate and we are happy to die for our cause.




I wonder what prompted such strong emotions?


----------



## doctorj (3 June 2010)

disarray said:


> so how would you deal with people who express that kind of ideology? we hate you, we want to kill you all, we will not negotiate and we are happy to die for our cause.
> 
> hey maybe more talks will do the trick?



Which side are you talking about?


----------



## disarray (3 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> I wonder what prompted such strong emotions?




Islam maybe?



			
				doctorj said:
			
		

> Which side are you talking about?




ummmm i'm going to go with the one that encourages their kids to blow themselves up


----------



## awg (3 June 2010)

I will be most interested to hear from the journos on board, especially the to Oz ones.

I dont know whether they or their employer are apologists for either side, but i will place more store on their accounts than on propoganda from other parties involved in this incident.

I consider myself relatively impartial in that I am neither for or against either side.

Just like any neigbours, you have to accomodate each other, or attempt to win the ensuing war, and as neither party can do that imo, dont know whats next


----------



## skcots (3 June 2010)

disarray said:


> ummmm i'm going to go with the one that encourages their kids to blow themselves up




Actually every Muslim scholar who counts forbids suicide.
http://seekersguidance.org/blog/201...nd-all-forms-of-terrorism-shaykh-tahir-qadri/

I am sure there are extremist Christians and Jews in the world. The difference is the Palestinians are really pissed off for some reason (God knows why??) and some people claiming to be scholars are misleading their people to get their way.


----------



## SmellyTerror (3 June 2010)

Gaza: the world's biggest Monroe Box.

_   Monroe: It's a special isolation chamber.  The subject pulls levers to receive food and water.  The floor can become electrified, and showers of icy water randomly fall on the subject.  I call it... *The Monroe Box!*

   Grampa: Uh huh.  Sounds interesting.  How much will it cost to build?

   Monroe: Oh, that's the beauty part!  It's already built!  I need the money to buy a baby to raise in the box until the age of thirty.

   Grampa: What are you trying to prove?

   Monroe: Well, my theory is that the subject will be socially maladjusted and *will harbor a deep resentment towards me.*

   Grampa: Mm.  Interesting._


----------



## disarray (3 June 2010)

skcots said:


> Actually every Muslim scholar who counts forbids suicide.
> http://seekersguidance.org/blog/201...nd-all-forms-of-terrorism-shaykh-tahir-qadri/




one islamic scholar hardly counts as "every scholar who counts". anyway this seems to be little more than his opinion, with minimal reference to primary sources, fuzzy wording and bearing little relation at all to either the reality of practiced islam or the historical activities of mohammed ("the perfect human" and fan of rape, paedophilia, mass murder and banditry). some quotes from it ...



> There is no gainsaying the fact that the Muslims on the whole oppose and condemn terrorism in unequivocal terms and are not ready to accept it even as remotely related to Islam in any manner. However, a negligible minority amongst them seems to give it a tacit support




recent british figures suggest up to 20% of muslims are sympathetic with suicide bombers, while 5 - 9% proactively support suicide bombers which means there are around 150,000 people IN ENGLAND who think murdering civilians in the name of islam is a good thing. that's hardly negligable. given hamas openly advocates genocide as a policy aim you'd think it possible that the palestinians who voted for them would support terrorism too.



> Thus, the Western policies are instrumental in producing and inducting new potential terrorist recruits and workforce, with no end in sight.




once again the role of islamic doctrine is completely whitewashed and blame placed firmly on the west for their "bad policy".



> It has been proven in the second chapter of this document through dozens of Quranic verses and Prophetic traditions that the *mass killing of Muslims* and perpetration of terrorism are not only unlawful and forbidden in Islam but also denote the rejection of faith.... Scores of Quranic verses and Prophetic traditions have proved *that massacre of Muslims and terrorism is unlawful in Islam; rather, they are blasphemous acts.*




*cough* how about jews? hindus? christians? buddhists maybe? followers of these religions are all right now, at this very moment, on the receiving end of islamic butchery in the sudan, nigeria, egypt, israel, thailand, the philippines etc. etc. click here for a list of current conflicts and see if you can spot the most common denominator. (hint: it's islam)



> The rights of non-Muslim citizens enjoy the same sanctity as those of Muslim citizens in an Islamic state. There is no difference between them as human beings




this is rubbish, history is full of examples of the jizya (kaffir tax) being placed on non-muslims in muslim state. even spain, held up by many apologists to be a shining light of progress and muslim / kaffir harmony underwent a period where jews and christians were forced to pay the jizya AND wear badges of apes and pigs on their clothing (sounds very germany 1939). those christians in saudi arabia sure are enjoying their religious freedom!

let's not even mention the subordinate role muslim women play in their very own society (honour killings, divorce proceedings, quaranic attitudes to female iq and worth, the burqa and so on)




			
				skcots said:
			
		

> I am sure there are extremist Christians and Jews in the world. The difference is the Palestinians are really pissed off for some reason (God knows why??) and some people claiming to be scholars are misleading their people to get their way.




you're also missing the difference where christian and jewish extremists aren't butchering people all over the world in the name of their religion.

here's a photo of a protest at sydney town hall the other night (they're very well internationally co-ordinated these muslim protestors, whether its the recent push at the UN to legitimise "ritual nicking" - a "benign" form of female genital circumcision / mutilation or protesting for palestine)

point of interest the flags in the photo - The black flag is the Black Flag of Jihad. The white flag is the flag of the Caliphate, or the Islamic Empire, where we have to live as slaves, convert or die. i'm thrilled to have such multicultural richness in my city!


----------



## Macquack (3 June 2010)

disarray said:


> israel responds with heli-commandos, the people on the boat mob them while armed with metal bars, knives, slingshots, molotovs and *modified paintball guns*, so the commandos return fire.




Get your story correct unless you want your argument to be in "disarray".

It was the Israeli commandos that were carrying the "paintball rifles" together with their back up "real" pistols.

*Israeli commandos 'carried paintball guns'*
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/01/2915586.htm

Israel is in the wrong, and Disarray wants to give them a pat them on the back.


----------



## disarray (3 June 2010)

Macquack said:


> It was the Israeli commandos that were carrying the "paintball rifles" together with their back up "real" pistols.




yeah be sure to MASSIVELY BOLD ONE SINGLE THING OUT OF VARIOUS POSTS, POINTS AND REFERENCES WHILE IGNORING EVERYTHING ELSE!!!1

actually it supports the israeli actions anyway, they swapped assault rifles for paintball guns to minimise civilian casualities. you're not a fan of tasers then i gather? here, have a video of flotilla protestors preparing to attack the israeli boarders





			
				Macquack said:
			
		

> Get your story correct unless you want your argument to be in "disarray".




clever. so original and clever in fact it hasn't even been used before in this very thread when someone had to latch onto a trivial point because they were too lazy / ignorant to argue the relevant points and references presented. kudos to you. hack.



			
				Machack said:
			
		

> Israel is in the wrong, and Disarray wants to give them a pat them on the back.




i don't recall cheering israel on. what i do is come in and refute the emotional bleating ("omg poor palestine! evil israel!") the bleeding heart brigade present anytime something significant in this stupid, convoluted and never ending issue occurs.

btw  "the turkish charity group behind the flotilla has "clear and longstanding ties to terrorism and jihad" 

but don't let the facts get in the way of some righteous indignation.

anyway the israelis did screw up bigtime .... see attached pic.


----------



## wayneL (3 June 2010)

Disarray,

What is your prescription for solving this problem?


----------



## Macquack (3 June 2010)

disarray said:


> so you've got a bunch of hamas followers and associated jihadists teaming up with *bleeding heart lefties *to run the blockade at gaza




Nine of those "bleeding heart lefties" are dead and many more are actually "bleeding" at the hands of your oppressing jewish mates.

Show some respect for humanity.


----------



## disarray (3 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> Disarray,
> 
> What is your prescription for solving this problem?




a reformation of islam. i won't hold my breath.



			
				Machack said:
			
		

> Show some respect for humanity




.... define humanity?


----------



## Macquack (3 June 2010)

disarray said:


> .... define humanity?




Not killing your fellow man is a good starting point.


----------



## wayneL (4 June 2010)

Here's a well written article from Peter Hitchens of the The Daily Mail

The Joys of Selective Outrage


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (4 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> Here's a well written article from Peter Hitchens of the The Daily Mail
> 
> The Joys of Selective Outrage



Good article there. 

Lenin's useful idiots analogy is apt here - the radical left.


----------



## Happy (4 June 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I have met many Israelis and many Palestinians in my time, and much prefer the Israelis.
> 
> The Palestinians are a dreadfully tribal people, riven by petty hatred for the outside world and for other Palestinians. Israelis make good friends and loyalty is their strong point.
> 
> ...





This is my experience too.

There is possibity that Israelis are so secretive that they do not allow their true feelings be exposed, but have my doubts if it is possible to pretend for years or decades.


----------



## wayneL (4 June 2010)

Happy said:


> This is my experience too.
> 
> There is possibity that Israelis are so secretive that they do not allow their true feelings be exposed, but have my doubts if it is possible to pretend for years or decades.




Clarification - Is it possible you and GG are referring to Jewish people here?

I know lots of Jews (and agree about the above mention virtues), but have come across very very few actual Israelis.


----------



## sneak'n (4 June 2010)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Good article there.
> 
> Lenin's useful idiots analogy is apt here - the radical left.



What makes Hitchens' article "good"?
Hitchen misunderstands the notion of "left" and his inconsistencies of attribution are a disservice to good journalism.
It's a rather clumsily constructed piece and all Hitchens really succeeds in is exposing his significant and many biases.
Good journalism has a semblance of balance and honesty while telling a story that needs to be heard.  
Worse, Hitchens prefers to rely on facts that just one side is offering up, and then embellishes them with unforgivable errors.  For example, when the Israelis illegally boarded civilian vessels in international waters Hitchens can see no wrong in then asking the captured people who had no choice in being taken to Israel, to agree to deportation if they signed a declaration that they had entered the country illegally!
I can fully understand Mr L offering up Hitchens' article as it's about as good as his oft quoted elsewhere Lord Monckton might conjure.


----------



## wayneL (4 June 2010)

sneak'n said:


> I can fully understand Mr L offering up Hitchens' article as it's about as good as his oft quoted elsewhere Lord Monckton might conjure.




In Rederob's zeal to fulfil some infantile grudge against me banning him for serial insults on this forum, he misinterprets my intentions and leaps to incorrect conclusions once again. 

Pitiful.


----------



## sneak'n (5 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> In Rederob's zeal to fulfill some infantile grudge against me banning him for serial insults on this forum, he misinterprets my intentions and leaps to incorrect conclusions once again.
> 
> Pitiful.



Mr L, you remain short on facts.  You claim it was a "well written" article.  Was that from the perspective of prose, fiction, or journalism?  Or, if there were elements worth deeper consideration, explain what they were so we can improve the thread.

Mr Pliskin, an apparent acolyte who I have yet to see has a clue about anything he posts, weighs in with an endorsement of it as being "good".  Again, as in the climate threads, Mr Pliskin either does not wish to or is incapable of defending his words.

Rather than making everything personal, and apparently with some issues between you and Rederob, try dealing with the substance of the topic at hand.

Hitchens has clearly mastered guilt by association and, unfortunately for less critical readers, this sticks.  Lord Monckton has similarly mastered a false truth by creating facts from thin air and presenting them as gospel.

Reading critically, Hitchens presents a potted history of the Gazan situation and then launches into the present relevance:







> So in the midst of this confusion, we now find ourselves in a huge row over the alleged 'Aid Convoy' manned by alleged 'Humanitarians' which approached the Israeli coast at the weekend and was boarded by Israeli armed forces.



Like Monckton, Hitchens relies on his own version of reality to suggest "confusion".  Rather, there is intricate complexity to many events that in historical chronicles are extremely detailed.  An imperative is determining the perspective of writers to gain a semblance of balance as to what they present, and how.

Hitchens then "alleges" an Aid Convoy.  Does he present evidence that the cargo is not aid?  No, he instead indulged in a campaign of guilt by association. 

Was the convoy approaching the Israeli coast, as Hitchens claims?  No, it was heading towards Gaza.

Was the convoy "boarded" by armed forces.  A moot and semantic point.  It was an assault by armed forces on a civilian vessel in international waters that led to many people being killed and more wounded.

Although Hitchens declares his partisan stance, he also suggests his views present a counter to other biased reporting of the events.  For example, he suggests the Turks would turn around a _ pro-Kurdish 'humanitarian convoy'  _.  This is an insult to your intelligence if you understand the Kurdish situation vis-a-vis Palestinian.  The Kurds are landlocked, and it's absurd to suggest anyone (let alone "humanitarians") would try to reach them by sea to deliver aid.  Then again, you might like to go catch a flight to Erbil on Kurdistan Airlines to see their new international airport, and compare that experience with trying to enter Gaza.

Would you like me to go on and present more of an indictment of Hitchens' article, Mr L, or will you keep indulging in some mysterious personal battle that seems to affect your responses to me?


----------



## wayneL (5 June 2010)

sneak'n said:


> Mr L, you remain short on facts.  You claim it was a "well written" article.  Was that from the perspective of prose, fiction, or journalism?  Or, if there were elements worth deeper consideration, explain what they were so we can improve the thread.




Rederob,

Umm, I didn't present any "facts", just linked to an article. Was it a good article? What makes a good article?

A good article does not necessarily have to be the gospel, but creates alternative points of view for discussion, because no one person seems to have a grasp of every vector in this schmozzle. We see things through our own particular bias. 

The fact that you are discussing the article (in between juvenile dick measuring) and raising good points is good and I thank you for your input, this was my intention.

What is disappointing for the thread is your infantile obsession with disparaging yours truly (and others). Please be assured that while I find it amusing, others find it annoying.

What is laughable and pathetic is your inference that you and Rederob are not the same person.

My strong advice is to stay on topic rederob and leave the puerile taunts out of the discussion.


----------



## sneak'n (5 June 2010)

While some may want to place what happened recently to the 'aid' convoy into political or legal contexts, there are also moral and ethical aspects to the matter.  More simply put, from the perspective of a reasonable person, what constitutes the greater good?  When thought about in this way it becomes irrelevant where the parties came from and allows us to set aside our biases.

So then, who is harmed if people who are deprived of many of the basics of living are to be provided some?   In the greater scheme of things it is difficult to conceive this act as being a threat.

In a more detailed sense what could we conclude?  There remains a view that some of what will be provided has the potential to be used in a threatening way.  That is, some cement and steel are used to build fortifications.  

To give credence to this latter view is to suggest that this source of 'aid' will be or become a significant contributor to its enemies.  For that view to hold we need to assume there is no other meaningful avenue for Palestinians to gain materials that will support their efforts.  In other words we need to put aside our knowledge of the enduring smuggling efforts at Rafah, where over 1000 tunnels bring in everything from cars to cigarettes.

We could go a step back and look at the morality of actions that led people to kill others on a ship.  The moral defence has a few elements, such as in times of war soldiers will kill people, or that any person has the right to defend themselves.

No reasonable person can sustain that Israel had declared "war" on the convoy, so we should put aside any notion that soldiers were just following orders or doing their duty.  That is not to say the convoy were not aware that the trip could get a bit rough.  But there is a reasonable expectation that it would be unlikely anyone would get killed in the known circumstances.

That leaves self defence as a justification for killing.  There needs to be exceptional circumstances to justify self-defence killings if one is an aggressor. Indeed, definitionally it is hard to conceive the civil concept of self-defence as pertaining to the perpetrator of a threatening act.  On this point I welcome discussion that jeopardises the common understanding.


----------



## gooner (5 June 2010)

McGeogh said some of the Israeli soldiers were Australians. How does an Australian travel half way round the world to join an army that is notorious for its human rights abuses and war crimes?  It is just to kill arabs?

Reminds me of all those stupid Australian muslims who head off to Afghanistan to joint the global jihad.

Let's hope none of them come back, as we do not want their hatreds here.


----------



## Bobby (5 June 2010)

wayneL said:


> Rederob,
> 
> 
> What is laughable and pathetic is your inference that you and Rederob are not the same person.
> ...




Yep its rederob ' what a nightmare   !~

Some extras = works as a  public servant , has short stature with dark to medium skin tone , nature wasn't kind to his facial features it seems .

 For any newer members information ( wayneL ) is the Man !!


----------



## Macquack (6 June 2010)

Bobby said:


> Yep its rederob ' what a nightmare   !~
> 
> Some extras = works as a  public servant , has short stature with dark to medium skin tone , nature wasn't kind to his facial features it seems .




What are you going on about??????


----------



## disarray (6 June 2010)

sneak'n said:


> there are also moral and ethical aspects to the matter.  More simply put, from the perspective of a reasonable person, what constitutes the greater good?  When thought about in this way it becomes irrelevant where the parties came from and allows us to set aside our biases.




morals, ethics and "greater goods" are relative to the culture. for example, it is morally acceptable for a "reasonable person" in certain cultures / ideologies to practice polygamy, slavery, female genital mutilation, honour killings, execute homosexuals, hack bits off people as a form of punishment and demand everyone in the world convert / submit to their way of thinking or die.

so in the context of this argument you are correct in that we must examine morals and ethics. one one side we have the morals and ethics endorsed by islam, and the other we have morals and ethics endorsed by judaism.

imo the most important root cause in this entire conflict is the role of supremacist islamic ideology, however open discussion of islam is suppressed in the west under the guise of "hate speech". slag off christianity all you want though, hypocrisy is alive and well.




> That leaves self defence as a justification for killing.  There needs to be exceptional circumstances to justify self-defence killings if one is an aggressor. Indeed, definitionally it is hard to conceive the civil concept of self-defence as pertaining to the perpetrator of a threatening act.  On this point I welcome discussion that jeopardises the common understanding.




well "aggressor" is pretty loose here. i've already posted links showing that the flotilla was organised by a terrorist organisation and carried members of terrorist groups who openly expressed a desire for martyrdom. i would consider these people to be "aggressive".

in addition the israelis repeatedly requested the convoy change course and unload at a different port to allow search of the cargo (not an unreasonable request) but the convoy was determined, and as shown by video, prepared to engage in a conflict with israeli defence forces.


----------



## Macquack (6 June 2010)

disarray said:


> i've already posted links showing that the *flotilla was organised by a terrorist organisation*




Disarray posts a link to "credible" website - "Jihad Watch" so it must be the truth???

To show some balance, shall I post a link to "Jew Watch", I think not.



disarray said:


> imo the most important root cause in this entire conflict is the role of supremacist *islamic* ideology, however open discussion of *islam* is suppressed in the west under the guise of *"hate speech". *




The same argument could read:-

imo the most important root cause in this entire conflict is the role of supremacist *zionist* ideology, however open discussion of *judaism* is suppressed in the west under the guise of *"anti-semitism".*


----------



## disarray (7 June 2010)

MacHack said:
			
		

> Disarray posts a link to "credible" website - "Jihad Watch" so it must be the truth???




actually it was yahoo news. so i take it you didn't even bother to click the link, let alone read it? between this and the insulting "a$$kissing jew lover" PM's you sent me i'm beginning to suspect you are, in fact, a retard.



			
				MacHack said:
			
		

> imo the most important root cause in this entire conflict is the role of supremacist *zionist* ideology, however open discussion of *judaism* is suppressed in the west under the guise of *"anti-semitism".*




i don't disagree with this assessment, but to discuss the roles and weights of competing islamic / zionist ideologies and their impact upon the respective political policies will require a level of knowledge and civility i don't think you're capable of. just stick with the stormfront-esqe abusive PM's ok?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (7 June 2010)

sneak'n said:


> What makes Hitchens' article "good"?
> Hitchen misunderstands the notion of "left" and his inconsistencies of attribution are a disservice to good journalism.
> It's a rather clumsily constructed piece and all Hitchens really succeeds in is exposing his significant and many biases.
> Good journalism has a semblance of balance and honesty while telling a story that needs to be heard.
> ...




Now that I have time to post I'll answer your question.

It was my opinion that I thought it was good. Not sure why Monckton needs to be mentioned but I'll be brief so as not to invite more irrelevant stuff. 


> ....a skill Israel has lost - it is in the disastrous position of having everyone know that its propaganda (and it works hard at it) *is* propaganda, its lobbying *is* lobbying etc, whereas Arab lobbying doesn't get noticed and its propaganda is reported as news, which is the real aim of all such operations.



I found this part informative. 

If you like good journalism please feel free to show the type you believe is good.


----------



## Macquack (7 June 2010)

dismayed said:


> actually it was yahoo news. so i take it you didn't even bother to click the link, let alone read it?




Actually, it was a direct link to the "Jihad Watch" site (try it yourself)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/t...red-desire-for-islamic-martyrdom-another.html

So if you accidently linked to one of your "favorites" websites, it is your mistake not mine.


----------



## DB008 (29 July 2010)

Found this.


----------



## Wysiwyg (24 December 2016)

Netanyahu needs to respect the U.N. Resolution and STOP expansion into occupied territory. Obey International law Netanyahu or go bash your head on the wailing wall. Set the borders and accept.


----------



## luutzu (26 December 2016)

Wysiwyg said:


> Netanyahu needs to respect the U.N. Resolution and STOP expansion into occupied territory. Obey International law Netanyahu or go bash your head on the wailing wall. Set the borders and accept.




The UN are only for suckers. Them and when political theatre is needed. 

Not sure why Obama decided to "abstain" from this vote. He's been a very good friend and ally to Israel, much more than Bush Jr. I mean, whenever they're asked to comment on Israeli new settlements, the answer is "it's not helpful" to peace; then hand over a few pallets of cash as downpayment for the construction. When the terrorists don't like their land being stolen and they're forced to live like animals, the Israeli defence force goes "mow the lawn" and Uncle Sam asks if they'd want to try new weapons to take out the topsoil too. 

My take on the latest silent treatment is, one, the Yahu that's running Israel is too upfront about his love for Trump. Can't blame him since Trump is a colonist's wet dream. But you got to pay some respect and lip service to an administration that's been way too friendly to you the past 8 years. Can't be an azzhole like that.

Part of the reasons why Bibi Yahu is slapping Obama a bit is, well... he's a racist and what self-respecting King of the Chosen People want to kiss the ring of a black guy; but on a political level the Israeli don't like the one condition Obama attached to his recent $40billion over 10 years military aid to Israel: All the aids have to be spent on US-made weapons.

Israeli economist, Scher Hever [?] said at the time that the US historically allow about 10 to 15% of the billions to be spent purchasing Israeli made weapon systems. So it's been great for the Israeli military/security/lawn mowing industrial complex. But with Obama, probably with the urging of northrop and co., now want all that welfare cheques to be cashed in at more responsible retailers... so that kinda upset a few Israeli billionaires. 

so Bibi's Israel is feeling abandoned and all that at the UN.


----------



## frugal.rock (14 May 2021)

It's been quiet for a while....


----------



## basilio (14 May 2021)

Excellent historical and current update on ABC.  I think most people have only a hazy idea of why this place is such a powder keg.
Far better than than simplistic piccies of rockets flying overhead.









						Confused about what's happening in Israel and the Palestinian Territories? Let's catch you up
					

There is always tension in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, but recently they have intensified and this week, they erupted. We look at the region's history, what's happening now and what all sides are saying.




					www.abc.net.au


----------



## rederob (15 May 2021)

Here is America again defending the free world.
Oh, maybe America doesn't know the rest of the world refers to Gaza an "an open-air prison".
No moral compass!


----------



## explod (16 May 2021)

Dreadful. why can't people live and share peacefully together.


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2021)

explod said:


> Dreadful. why can't people live and share peacefully together.



You can't change human nature.


----------



## explod (17 May 2021)

sptrawler said:


> You can't change human nature.



Controlled by religion. Only recently found that the Bible began to be put together in the 16th century and the variations between the different ones show what a controlling joke it is.

Apologies but I'm an athiest.


----------

