Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bombus

  1. Ooh those sneaky terrorists! Who'd have thought it! Not like the good old terrorists we used to know and love who'd always play by the rules. Even if you do believe the Israeli military's claims that there were gunmen nearby, why should innocents pay the price for the evil of terrorists? This is the same Israeli military that has been shooting young children through the head at 15 metres (as reported on the BBC). I suppose you'd have condoned the bombing of Londonderry for the acts of the IRA then? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, maybe you are not thinking logically. Israel can hardly been seen to blatantly target civilians can they, so they do the next best thing and just ignore their presence. This has deniability, but still serves the same purpose. Anyway, 1300 Palestinians killed is hardly 'so few'. I'd reserve that for the 13 Israeli's killed, some of whom were soldiers in combat! so few aren't there. And they're only Palestinians, not real people at all are they - and they're all probably terrorists really: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7836596.stm Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Lies indeed! Hardly. It had already been established that some Arabs live in Israel. That was not the point! I added the link so it's hardly as if I was trying to cover anything up. Read the lot, read the whole history of Israel. The facts bare me out. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged OK, fair enough. Why not? The UK did with the IRA. This doesn't count, as I have pointed out many times in this thread. I wonder why? Well if Israel pulled out of the occupied zones, gave the refugees their land back, and stopped supporting illegal settlements you'd be a lot safer, and Hamas would have a lot less oxygen! Israel could have spoken with Arafat instead of shooting at his him in his compound. Whay do you think the extremist Hamas are in power? What lead people to vote for them? Do you ever ask these questions? Well, if the one state solution is to be ignored (and I don't think it's that unrealistic) Israel could start by pulling out of the occupied zones etc (see above). It wouldnt satisfy all Palestinians, but might satisfy enough of them in the long term. Israel has to learn to 'turn the other cheek' or it will sow the seeds of its own destruction in the long term - and that means all of us go down. . Well of course? What do you expect?
  2. Funny how you interpret Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but not the state of Israel. Is the fact that one has a UN approved state the dividing line? I am not a necessarily a pacifist, I just think that Israels actions were WAY over the top for the threat posed by those rockets. As previously said, the British never acted like this in Northern Ireland, despite extreme provocation. In the past you have suggested that Israel getting this done before Obama takes office is a nutcase conspiracy theory - despite it being repeated by mainstream news reporters! (I however, don't think Obama will make any changes though, judging by his choice of Chief of Staff) OK, think about this from the other direction. Why on Earth would Israel carry out such actions knowing full well it will simply entrench opinions further? How would such actions possibly make Palestinians less militant? Are Israel's leaders total idiots? Maybe they are, but I doubt it. The more militant Hamas become, the more action Israel can take, until Gaza is a wasteland and the Palestinians flee, like has happened in the past from other former Palestinian areas. No Palestinians - no problem. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm not, you said that Gaza had only been in existence for a short time. Yes that is true. But there were a great many Palestinians who were expelled or fled during the war, who are now outside so-called Israeli territory but without their land etc. - the Palestinian Refugees. They may not wish to be part of Israel as is, but may be willing to be part of a new state.
  3. That's not true! Check the boundaries here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel) The Israeli side of the Green Line encompasses 78.5% of what was Palestine in 1947. The majority of Arabs who had inhabited what became the Israeli side of the Line either fled or were expelled during the war.
  4. Well you'd be wrong. Native Americans are not excluded from the USA and *are* US citizens. Also, as said before, the crimes that stole their land were done when no-one considered the rights of indiginous people, and the colonists did think the Native Americans as somewhat sub-human. This was not the case in 1948, and certainly is not now. Similarly, I would not support the Welsh firing rockets into England as the Anglo-Saxons stole our land 1500 years ago!
  5. No they have not. They were not two nations then. They were two religions living within one nation. It is your history that is innaccurate, not mine. Have you have had a lifetime of indoctrination about it? No-one had a right to create a Jewish homeland on land that belonged to everyone that lived there - apart from the right of might, which is indeed what prevailed. OK, Agreed. But our standpoints on the historical background are opposite, so we may have the same facts, but interpret them in different ways. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I don't mind people making bets or guesses etc., it's when they don't think through the logic of what they are syaing. Making guesses is fine, but make them educated ones! Actually they didn't. What about arms trading to Israel, is that going to stop ?- or can they keep re-arming themselves? A little one-sided isn't it? I think they have never been further away. So many people have lost loved ones, the Palestinians will be even more militant - which was probably Israel's objective. If you're on about Dresden, it WAS a disgusting event - a war crime in my opinion. The British should be ashamed of Dresden. I think my take on history is honest. I often find myself at odds with forum members. I am often accused of being extreme. The truth is, I just question received opinion - these unshakeable myths that people seem to accept and then base their perceptions on. I am actually not particularly extreme - I just say what I feel needs to be said. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well, I think a one-state solution would go a long way! It would be a win-win solution for everyone, Jew and Palestinian alike, united in a single all-inclusive, non-secular state.
  6. Yes, but Israel can continue with its militant response, i.e., occupying Palestinian territories, allowing illegal expansion to occur, blockading Gaza, buildling illegal walls across Palestinian land etc. It seems to me that people here are characterizing Israel as a peaceful country that just wants to stop the rockets, and are completely forgetting the entire context in which this conflict exists. Israel have been provocoteurs for the past 50 odd years. I can't expect people from the USA to remove their bias goggles though, as you get force fed anti-arab propaganda by CNN, Fox, etc. It's like you can't see the other side of the coin. Israel is an out of control rogue state that can do exactly what it likes, including bombing the UN. No-one does anything about it, not one sanction put in place, because they have the US and all other western nations by the balls. I only wish they weren't a nuclear armed state. Yet more murderous acts here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-ml-gaza-doctors-grief,0,7475024.story Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, so was I. I bet very few of the WP casualties were from similar actions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Why? Israel will continue to occupy Gaza. The rockets are not going to stop now anyway - with over 1000 Palestinians dead and many more injured. It's a meaningless statement. Their still bombing Gaza. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged And he'd have been right. I suspect they are far wiser people than anyone on this forum.
  7. My incredulity is because you appear to be suggesting that all the civilian casualties are due to this, which I would strongly suggest is nonsense.
  8. I think it could have a profound and beneficial effect on humans to come face to face with another kind of human.
  9. ********! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What utter nonsense. Listen to yourself!
  10. Err... did no-one tell you? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No, but I have read other sources of historical information on the subject.
  11. Well I'd hardly call these independent sources!
  12. The trouble is that the very existance of Israel provokes the whole conflict. The analogy is a bit like me coming to sleep in your spare room, then you come home one day to find that I have claimed your house, changed the locks and banished you to the garden shed, and then when you throw a brick at the window everyone blames you for being violent.
  13. Yes I do. I think it's a failed and outdated model that is more hassle than it's worth. It creates never ending problems that end up with 911, and with Israeli Jews being more hated than ever. I think it does more harm than good for everyone.
  14. Yes and most of those Jews were still there 2500 later, many of them having converted to Islam or Christianity many centuries ago. It is not! No double standards by me. I have not picked an arbitrary date - I picked 14th may 1948 as the day the Palestinians lost a great deal of their homeland. You can argue that they lost it fair and square to a superior military force - but we are not supposed to act like that in the 20th/21st Centuries as we are supposed to be a little more civilised. It is TOTALLY relevent to the current situation! Why do you think Hamas hate Israel so much. The siezure of Palestinian land took place in living memory! Well, basically YES, but it depends exactly what one means by that. It would mean the dissolving of the current state of Israel and it merging with the Palestinian lands to form one new united country. Palestinians who have lost their farms etc would be given it back and the new state could look forward to a peaceful future with everyone having equal rights and opportunities. The difference is that the colonization of the Americas was a long slow process that started a very long time ago and done by people who regarded the Indians as savages and rather less than human. It was an abysmal crime but done when no-one considered things like the rights of indiginous people. That is NOT the same as the situation in modern day (post 1945) Israel/Palestine.
  15. Well, anyone can come and live here and call themselves Welsh if they like. However, if a group came here then siezed the majority of the country by force and called it Israel and forced me off my land to live in a wasteland I'd probably want to fight them until they were destroyed.
  16. Its not my analysis it's what happened. The problems between Jews and 'Arabs' before then was largely as a result of British, US and UN meddling (as ever) from the early 1900's onwards. What I am meaning is that the country of Israel was effectively seized from the Palestinian majority. One could argue that it was seized from the British Empire, but they had no rights to the land either. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I mean the modern state of Israel. It once 'belonged' to the Palestinians under the 'protection' of the British Empire.
  17. There had been Jews living side by side with Arabs in Palestine for millennia. A problem started when the UN came up with the 'homeland for the Jews' idea. If Palestine had remained a single state for Jews and Palestinians all with equal rights and opportunities all would have been fine. It all went wrong on 14th May 1948 when the new Israeli State declared independence. That's when the Palestinians and Arabs got angry - and understandably so! It should never have happened. There will never be peace in the region, and it will continue to affect us all. Very sad, but all Israel's fault really - it ain't only their country! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Err...this sounds like the Final Solution argument I referred to earlier? Are you saying that is what Israel really wants?
  18. Aw, c'mon. The creation of modern Israel is hardly the same as say the Europeans colonizing the Americas, or Australia, or Paleolithic man colonizing Europe after the Ice Age. This occurred in modern times when there were international laws, ideas (if not laws) concerning human rights etc. The ancestors of the modern Palestinians had always lived there - many probably being the decendents of converted Jews. I am not living on anyone else's home. Us Welsh go back to the Paleolithic... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged hear hear!
  19. Well maybe pictures speak a thousand words so why not see this 2 min video and tell me that Israelis actions are proportionate and justified. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21673.htm Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't think Israel being a nuclear armed state with modern weapons is really at threat from a bunch of desperates with crappy missiles. The word proportionate is often used. Israels response is not proportionate to the threat. I don't really think conspiracy theories are needed here! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How can they with Israel having ceased most of the fertile lands and 4/5ths of the water supplies? Anyway, Israel was created by force - stealing land that already belonged to the Palestinians. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Well presumably to fend off Arab States - not kill Palestinians.
  20. Well I'm using the term 'bad guys' to keep things simple. Obviously the picture is far from simple, and it's not possible to draw a line and say one would accept x civilian casualties for y military targets. I can't say when day ends and night begins but I know the difference between the two... But when looked at holistically, what on Earth do Israel think this will achieve? It will not stop the missiles, it will kill innocents - including children (who I mention as they have no power of voting so some of the excuses for killing civilians expressed don't apply), and it will increase the hatred of Israel by Palestinians and others. It is a totally pointless excercise that will have no long-term beneficial effect for anyone. Israel should have been adult about the situation, not acting like some bad tempered child in a tantrum.
  21. Well very few actually get killed or injured compared to the hundreds of Palestinians that get killed by this sort of 'defensive action'. Are Palestinians less human than Israelis? I know a story about a man from Germany with a little moustache that used arguments like that.. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What? They are not allowed to leave! Israel won't let them leave - and hasn't done for many years.
  22. Well of course. These are the problems that liberal democracies have to deal with - we have to fight with one arm tied behind our backs. Otherwise just imagine what a morally derelict world we'd live in. Londonderry would have been carpet-bombed, as would Catalonia, the Basque region, Texas Someone has to play the adult and that someone should be the liberal democratic state.
  23. Says you. I disagree. Lets not beat about the bush here. If you want to get at one or two bad guys but are willing to kill tens of civilians including small children to do so, you are a bad guy too. Most of the 'bad guys' being targetted are not even actively fighting at the time, so there is no clear and present danger being stopped here. It is mostly pre-emptive. Surely you'd agree that killing children as a direct consequence of pre-emptive action is unethical?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.