The Middle East Continues...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


So firing hundreds of missiles into Israeli cities is an attempt to kill Israeli military personnel??

Strangely enough, despite apparently targeting civilians hizbullah have actually killed more IDF than civilians (Israel's confirmed death toll so far in three weeks of asymmetric conflict is 58 soldiers and 34 civilians. The Times, today)

Whereas Israel has apparently killed over 900 civilians, at least a third of which are children - indeed if you believe Israel's account of hizb killed by its forces (around 300. Probably inflated for face saving/propaganda reasons), it is killing roughly one child for every hizb killed.

If you believe Lebanese sources the ratio is about 3 children for every hizb.

This means that Israel has killed ten times as many children as hizb has killed civilians, and thirty times as many civilians...

I put it to you. Who are the real terrorists? Or at least the terrorists most effective at killing civilians?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by atawa


I doubt any Hamas member from Gaza can just get into his car and drive to temple mount for a visit

Anyway, what you seem to forget is that there is a mosque standing on temple mount these days, not a temple.

You didn't specify gaza earlier. You simply suggested that the site was off limits to hamas members which it is not.

The value to the jews was in the site more than the building. The buildings are mourned but the site remained the only location of divinely mandated significance.

Also if westerners got pissed off in some nasty ww3 and built a big honking cathedral on the ruins of the destroyed Kaaba it would never become appropriate to bar muslims from completing the hajj no matter how many centuries the crime would recede into the past.

It is impossible to remove the significance of a religious site simply by putting a building dedicated to a competing religion on the site.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Lonestar



What the Israeli Prime Minister has to say to European leaders who tell them to stop.

And?

I wasn't for that attack. Granted Yugoslavia were guilty of racist discrimination against the muslim Kosovars, but no worse than Israel vs the Palestinians. This created a belligerent force to attack them (KLA), just like Israel effectively brought about the creation of the PLO or Hizb. Yugoslavia attacked the KLA in a clumsy manner undoubtedly involving war crimes, just like Israel in Palestine - or South Lebabon. Yet whilst Ehud 'Son of a Terrorist' Olmert reminds us of so many civilian casualties (I bet the Americans would disagree with the exact figure ), we in the West sit idly by as Israel bombs the **** out of Lebanon. When we waded straight in to attack Yugoslavia.

Most of those would have been killed by the Americans anyway, and two wrongs don't make a right.

If we'd have grown a backbone during the Bosnian conflict (i.e. Dutch troops standing by as Serb militias removed muslims from their so-called 'safe enclave' in Srebrenica for example), Kosovo most likely wouldn't have happened.

Besides, Nato only twatted Yugoslavia because they were using Israeli-style tactics to root out the aggressor KLA terrorist/freedom fighters...

[Geronimo]

For the record was a consensus ever acheived here as to whether firing unguided rockets into enemy territory constitutes terrorism?

It seems quite different from say, planting a bomb in a bus or synagogue or directing a suicide bomber into a disco. Does anyone know of a list somewhere that itemizes hezbollah's terrorist acts which it has accepted responsibility for?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


And?

I wasn't for that attack. Granted Yugoslavia were guilty of racist discrimination against the muslim Kosovars, but no worse than Israel vs the Palestinians. This created a belligerent force to attack them (KLA), just like Israel effectively brought about the creation of the PLO or Hizb. Yugoslavia attacked the KLA in a clumsy manner undoubtedly involving war crimes, just like Israel in Palestine - or South Lebabon. Yet whilst Ehud 'Son of a Terrorist' Olmert reminds us of so many civilian casualties (I bet the Americans would disagree with the exact figure ), we in the West sit idly by as Israel bombs the **** out of Lebanon. When we waded straight in to attack Yugoslavia.

Most of those would have been killed by the Americans anyway, and two wrongs don't make a right.

If we'd have grown a backbone during the Bosnian conflict (i.e. Dutch troops standing by as Serb militias removed muslims from their so-called 'safe enclave' in Srebrenica for example), Kosovo most likely wouldn't have happened.

Besides, Nato only twatted Yugoslavia because they were using Israeli-style tactics to root out the aggressor KLA terrorist/freedom fighters...

agreed.

I also wonder just how many of israels critics in europe actually supported the aggression against Serbia. There's no reason to suppose that many did.

Unfortunately Israels argument is pretty good at painting the governments of Nato countries as hippocrits if they now choose to condemn israel now while not having apologized for participating in the aggression against serbia earlier.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You really don't know when to cut your losses, do you?

BTW, I posted the contents of the plaques. The rest of it was in the first part of the article that you linked from some whack-job, right-wing site that makes the BNP look like reasonable people, and who did not carry that part.

YES! You gave credence to my article by finding its origin in The Times... The fact that it is on some 'whack-job, right-wing site that makes the BNP look like reasonable people' is irrelevant because it is still the original article.

As for the plaques, all you are doing is helping my point again by exposing Israeli attempts to rewrite the history of a despicable terrorist atrocity - a celebration no less attended by Netanyahu, among others. So thanks for helping me expose Israel's callous attempts to justify its terrorist past.

And here you are crying innocence and 'lack of time'.

I am not, obviously your Latin is as useless as the fact that you fail to grasp that by finding the original article you have not hindered me - you have helped me!

Are you really that stupid and naive that you think if an article is posted on an extremist site it is therefore irredeemably tarnished by the reputation of that site!!?

I bet the US constitution is posted word for word on loads of extremist sites, however if we apply your 'logic' it cannot possibly be considered 'correct'...

How do you explain the second part of AS's criticism? I'll bet it is that anti-Semites can be right twice a day, like broken clocks, or maybe they are right 24 hours a day in Mobystan.

If leave you to investigate him fully, but I can almost assure you that you won't like what you uncover...

Also again, just out of interest which parts of McCarthy's article do you disagree with and why?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Geronimo


agreed.

I also wonder just how many of israels critics in europe actually supported the aggression against Serbia. There's no reason to suppose that many did.

Unfortunately Israels argument is pretty good at painting the governments Nato countries as hippocrits if they now choose to condemn israel now while not having apologized for participating in the aggression against serbia earlier.

Indeed. The hypocrisy started when we allowed the state of Israel to be created in 1948, and it has been continuing ever since...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Indeed. The hypocrisy started when we allowed the state of Israel to be created in 1948, and it has been continuing ever since...

allowing the creation of the state wasn't a big deal, certainly not a terrible crime. Remember there was no state existing there at the time so creation of a state of some kind was essential.

The problem imho was designating a religion for each of the states being created. That was stupid.

A better way to deal with the zionist aspirations would have been to have created one single state in the palestinian mandate and allow unlimited immigration for a few years there by jews and set aside some money for legally buying them individual plots of property from owners willing to sell. Of course the biggest problem then would become avoiding civil war, but so long as a religiously neutral constitution was adopted I think there could have been hope.

[Kuciwalker]

Obviously the solution is to get rid of Israel

Oh, wait, apart from the myriad moral problems with that, didn't I point out the slight practical difficulties earlier? Something about lots of nukes and existential threats?

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Geronimo


allowing the creation of the state wasn't a big deal, certainly not a terrible crime. Remember there was no state existing there at the time so creation of a state of some kind was essential.

The problem imho was designating a religion for each of the states being created. That was stupid.

A better way to deal with the zionist aspirations would have been to created one single state in the palestinian and allow unlimited immigration for a few years there by jews and set aside some money for legally buying them individual plots of property from owners willing to sell. Of course the biggest problem then would become avoiding civil war, but so long as a religiously neutral constitution was adopted I think there could have been hope.

Except I doubt what you are suggesting would have worked. The bottom line was a sudden huge influx of Jews intent on carving out a state for themselves - by fair means or foul. The whole thing was predestined to fail IMO.

Indeed IIRC there was a limited immigration allowed by the British Mandate governing Palestine at the time. Jews had been living peacefully side by side with Arabs for centuries before - it was the sudden uncontrolled influx that caused the problems...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Except I doubt what you are suggesting would have worked. The bottom line was a sudden huge influx of Jews intent on carving out a state for themselves - by fair means or foul. The whole thing was predestined to fail IMO.

Indeed IIRC there was a limited immigration allowed by the British Mandate governing Palestine at the time. Jews had been living peacefully side by side with Arabs for centuries before - it was the sudden uncontrolled influx that caused the problems...

I would suggest it was the invasion by neighboring arab armies that caused the problems.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Except I doubt what you are suggesting would have worked. The bottom line was a sudden huge influx of Jews intent on carving out a state for themselves - by fair means or foul. The whole thing was predestined to fail IMO.

Indeed IIRC there was a limited immigration allowed by the British Mandate governing Palestine at the time. Jews had been living peacefully side by side with Arabs for centuries before - it was the sudden uncontrolled influx that caused the problems...

How by foul? If memory serves the massive influx of jewish people were paying far in excess of fair market value for lands purchased at the time. Not quite the 24 dollars in beads and trinkets offered the tribes of Manhattan.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Obviously the solution is to get rid of Israel

Only an extremist or simpleton would believe that is the solution.

Obviously the Israelis are here to stay now, however it is clear that they cannot keep going as they are now breaking god knows how many UN resolutions on a daily basis. Basically they need to get back to the borders they were mandated in 1948 before you're ever likely to see an end of this conflict.

It is like the situation in Iraq whilst the majority of people in the world were wholly against the invasion, I'd say anyone with any sense knows that bugging out now would be a serious mistake.

Oh, wait, apart from the myriad moral problems with that, didn't I point out the slight practical difficulties earlier? Something about lots of nukes and existential threats?

Indeed. But Israel is its own worst enemy. By terrorising Palestine for so long, the people voted in Hamas - democratically!

I hate to think who's going to be in power next time the Lebanese have a democratic election...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Geronimo

I would suggest it was the invasion by neighboring arab armies that caused the problems.

I would suggest the problems had already started before 1948...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MOBIUS



Obviously the Israelis are here to stay now, however it is clear that they cannot keep going as they are now breaking god knows how many UN resolutions on a daily basis. Basically they need to get back to the borders they were mandated in 1948 before you're ever likely to see an end of this conflict.

Help me with this because I agree Israel does need to pull back to mandated borders. Why do you beleive this will help bring about peace in light of teh response that occurred laterly. Israel pulls out of gaza, enemies response is to make it a terrorist raingin ground with incursions. Israel pulls military presence out of southern Lebanon in 2000 with the expectation that UN resolutions would hold sway only to find it emboldened Hezb and led to further attacks.

How does Israel pull back to mandated borders wihtout it giving fuel to Hezb. and others misguided sense of victory that leads to further misery?