Netanyahu's victims

[clivex]

It's time both of you gave up this simplistic and tiresome line of argument.

Israel professes to be a democracy and to respect human rights, something both of you make much play of. Nobody makes such claims of moral superiority on behalf of Hamas.

Israel receives much support from the west ranging from direct aid for military hardware to shared commercial and security intelligence, favoured access to markets and moral support at the UN. Hamas does not .

Israel is vastly more powerful than Hamas (and has gone beyond what most people think is acceptable in order to prove it).

Culturally speaking Israel since its inception has been part of Europe and the west and has traditionally received a sympathetic hearing.

Why exactly should you presume to expect people to be out protesting about today's grotesque events in Gaza? If you think it so amazingly important that people should be out protesting why aren't you out leading marches yourselves?

Patronising and as arrogant as ever with absolutely nothing to say.

Israel isn't the only country armed by the west is it? Or are you suggesting that hamas should have nukes too? Favoured trade? Such as? I think you will find Israel trade successfully on mutual terms because it is rather good at it.

Give up? Why? its an entirely valid question to answer to which is blindingly obvious.

And that's absolute rubbish trackside. Every argument has been debated and the anti Semitic line is on how many posts on this thread?

Damn right it is mentioned though because without any doubt at all it is the core of a lot of supposed outrage from the Muslim world and the hard left, not to mention Jew haters like Jenny tonge and David hunt in the liberals

Do you want examples of left wing leaders fawning over imams who proclaim the nazis as a gift from god? Or drumming up attacks on "Israelis", (knowing full well that nutters would not differentiate), in certain northern cities? Or a Very prominent left wing filmaker who proclaimed that attacks on jews in Europe were justified? It's a long list

How anyone can dismiss that is beyond me.

 

[Grey]

Israel isn't the only country armed by the west is it? Or are you suggesting that hamas should have nukes too? Favoured trade? Such as? I think you will find Israel trade successfully on mutual terms because it is rather good at it.

Give up? Why? its an entirely valid question to answer to which is blindingly obvious.

Sorry if it sounds patronising (actually I'm not) but you really are behaving like a gobshite. As ever you wilfully seek to misunderstand opposing points of view.

Nobody in the west is saying we should be arming Hamas. Who have you heard saying that?

What people want is for Israel to adhere to the standards expected of a country that is supposed to be a trusted friend of the west, part of it even. Yes, we expect more of Israel that we do of Hamas, which is not a trusted friend, never will be and will never have the privileges accorded to Israel. What's so surprising about that?

 

[harry]

Sorry if it sounds patronising (actually I'm not) but you really are behaving like a gobshite. As ever you wilfully seek to misunderstand opposing points of view.

Nobody in the west is saying we should be arming Hamas. Who have you heard saying that?

What people want is for Israel to adhere to the standards expected of a country that is supposed to be a trusted friend of the west, part of it even. Yes, we expect more of Israel that we do of Hamas, which is not a trusted friend, never will be and will never have the privileges accorded to Israel. What's so surprising about that?

What standards would you be talking about?

A Western country, pick any one?
Rockets are fired into it from its neighbour.....actually quite a lot!

What "Standards" would be expected?

Probably War!!

 

[clivex]

Sorry if it sounds patronising (actually I'm not) but you really are behaving like a gobshite. As ever you wilfully seek to misunderstand opposing points of view.

Nobody in the west is saying we should be arming Hamas. Who have you heard saying that?

What people want is for Israel to adhere to the standards expected of a country that is supposed to be a trusted friend of the west, part of it even. Yes, we expect more of Israel that we do of Hamas, which is not a trusted friend, never will be and will never have the privileges accorded to Israel. What's so surprising about that?

I can understand that to some extent but Israel has to look after it's citizens first and worry about the international image second.

As has been stated before it seems that some people's idea of standards is that Israel should just sit tehre and do absolutely nothing about the attacks with the genuine likelihood that they will become more more lethal.

That's an extraordinary and quite unbelievable expectation.

 

[clivex]

Morons

http://hurryupharry.org/2014/08/23/gaza-protests-in-london-2014-hatred-and-ignorance-on-display/

 

[icebreaker]

Morons

And ill-informed morons at that. Silly old bints who should know better at their age.
Then you have the younger people in the vids who freely admit they don't know what they are protesting about.

No mention, however, of the "Death To Jews" placards that were on display in those London protests.

 

[Grey]

I can understand that to some extent but Israel has to look after it's citizens first and worry about the international image second.

In most people's eyes the Israeli government has gone much further than seeking to look after its citizens and has sought an opportunity to crush a neighbour, that's mainly what the argument in Europe is about.

Regarding some of those protestors you refer to above, you get eejits everywhere, it's easy to blacken a point of view by linking it to the extremists on the same side.

For example some government ministers in Israel, some rabbis and plenty of settlers think their mission is to remove all Palestinians not just from Israel but even from greater Israel. Some of them think they will be fulfilling a biblical mission in doing so.

 

[Maruco]

And that's absolute rubbish trackside. Every argument has been debated and the anti Semitic line is on how many posts on this thread?

You keep making this claim, but that's not what I'm reading Clive. Just because people disagree with your position doesn't make them anti Semitic. They argue just as Grey does that Israels response is well beyond what should be expected.

Maybe you could go back through the very many pages on this thread and give just two or three examples of the anti Semitic postings you refer to. If you can't (which you can't), please stop throwing this line out as its untrue and unfair.

 

[clivex]

It's getting a bit tiresome this. There are no directly anti Semitic postings beacuse that wouldnt be tolerated but clearly some opinions which are "Israeli hatred".

I am talking about the wider world. Without any doubt whatsoever a good proportion of the "protesting" against Israel by Muslims and fellow travellers is driven by anti semitism. No doubt about that whatsoever. We have been through the reasons why that is so very clear

But for one last time, I dot buy this protestors are justified because of "western support" for Israel. What's that got to with it? They claim t be interested in human rights. As if... Because if they were there is a bloody big Chinese embassy near regents park which represents a country that fully backed the Sudanese genocide which killed 500000 not 2000. Not to mention various other embassies representing vile states

Do these get attention from the left wing and Islamist bigots? Do they fck

 

[clivex]

In most people's eyes the Israeli government has gone much further than seeking to look after its citizens and has sought an opportunity to crush a neighbour, that's mainly what the argument in Europe is about.

Regarding some of those protestors you refer to above, you get eejits everywhere, it's easy to blacken a point of view by linking it to the extremists on the same side.

For example some government ministers in Israel, some rabbis and plenty of settlers think their mission is to remove all Palestinians not just from Israel but even from greater Israel. Some of them think they will be fulfilling a biblical mission in doing so.

Yeah and "most" Germans backed hitler

I don't deny there are extreme elements in Israel but that's been highlighted enough,....by yourself i recall? So problem with highlighting the ignorance and bigotry of some protesters? There have been more than a few that enthusiastically latch themselves into the hitler admiring sects of hamas and Hezbollah. We are all "nazis now" eh?

 

[Grasshopper]

I can understand that to some extent but Israel has to look after it's citizens first and worry about the international image second.

As has been stated before it seems that some people's idea of standards is that Israel should just sit tehre and do absolutely nothing about the attacks with the genuine likelihood that they will become more more lethal.

That's an extraordinary and quite unbelievable expectation.

Good to see that you and Art can exchange ideas in a civil manner - something which would be aided if you started fewer of your posts with words like "Rubbish" or the likes. You often come across as lacking any respect for other peoples opinions, and you make far more sense, when you adopt a more conciliatory tone.

I get the point that you and Icebreaker are trying to make, which is essentially that Israel just can't be expected to sit there and take it, as it would only invite more attacks onto them. I don't think anyone (on this thread) has suggested that they just sit there and take it. The argument which has raged here is whether Israel's response is proportionate or not.

Again, you (and Ice) appear to take the view that "Shock and Awe" is an appropriate response given the circumstances......and it's really that position which is being questioned.

Arthur's thesis that Israel are held to a higher moral standard is accurate I think - principally for many of the reasons that you yourself would state. But you seem to think that Israel is only doing what any other Western State would do......and I think this is where we essentially diverge.

To use a reference-point that many of us will be familiar with, the IRA conducted bombings and shootings on UK territory for around a quarter of a century - bombings which resulted in many hundreds more deaths and maimings than Hamas have inflicted on Israel since the First Intifada kicked-off.

Not once throughout that 25 year period, did the UK government consider sending the RAF over Belfast, Derry (or anywhere else), with a view to dropping bombs into Republican areas. The UK's relative (overall) circumspection throughout that particular period, is much more reflective of what is an acceptable response to an aggressor, imo.

 

[Grey]

Yeah and "most" Germans backed hitler

I don't deny there are extreme elements in Israel but that's been highlighted enough,....by yourself i recall? So problem with highlighting the ignorance and bigotry of some protesters? There have been more than a few that enthusiastically latch themselves into the hitler admiring sects of hamas and Hezbollah. We are all "nazis now" eh?

Snarl snarl snarl. Calm down or people might think you're a mouth foamer too.

 

[Maruco]

Good to see that you and Art can exchange ideas in a civil manner - something which would be aided if you started fewer of your posts with words like "Rubbish" or the likes. You often come across as lacking any respect for other peoples opinions, and you make far more sense, when you adopt a more conciliatory tone.

I get the point that you and Icebreaker are trying to make, which is essentially that Israel just can't be expected to sit there and take it, as it would only invite more attacks onto them. I don't think anyone (on this thread) has suggested that they just sit there and take it. The argument which has raged here is whether Israel's response is proportionate or not.

Again, you (and Ice) appear to take the view that "Shock and Awe" is an appropriate response given the circumstances......and it's really that position which is being questioned.

Arthur's thesis that Israel are held to a higher moral standard is accurate I think - principally for many of the reasons that you yourself would state. But you seem to think that Israel is only doing what any other Western State would do......and I think this is where we essentially diverge.

To use a reference-point that many of us will be familiar with, the IRA conducted bombings and shootings on UK territory for around a quarter of a century - bombings which resulted in many hundreds more deaths and maimings than Hamas have inflicted on Israel since the First Intifada kicked-off.

Not once throughout that 25 year period, did the UK government consider sending the RAF over Belfast, Derry (or anywhere else), with a view to dropping bombs into Republican areas. The UK's relative (overall) circumspection throughout that particular period, is much more reflective of what is an acceptable response to an aggressor, imo.

And that's about the size of it Grasshopper. But you know what the next line will be!

 

[icebreaker]

Not once throughout that 25 year period, did the UK government consider sending the RAF over Belfast, Derry (or anywhere else),

:lol:

Oh dear.
The RAF certainly did conduct aircraft operations in Northern Ireland -- and did so for 30 years of the Troubles in Operation Banner.
There were also, of course, up to 20,000 British troops also deployed there on active service at any one time during this period.
(How many soldiers did Israel have on the ground in Gaza recently?).

 

[Grasshopper]

:lol:

Oh dear.
The RAF certainly did conduct aircraft operations in Northern Ireland -- and did so for 30 years of the Troubles in Operation Banner.
There were also, of course, up to 20,000 British troops also deployed there on active service at any one time during this period.
(How many soldiers did Israel have on the ground in Gaza recently?).

Are you for real?

How many bombs did the RAF drop, is the point. It goes to the proportionate-response argument.

Oh dear yer fu*cking hole.

 

[icebreaker]

And your's,

Try and keep your language temperate, yeah? You might be from the gutter, but try not to advertise it.

 

[Grasshopper]

Go fu*ck yourself.

 

[icebreaker]

Try to learn how to behave in public and how to conduct yourself in open forums, would be my advice. You're letting yourself down badly with your filthy mouth.
Maybe you don't realise it.

 

[Grasshopper]

I won't be taking lessons in Internet (or any other) etiquette from the likes of you.

Stick me on ignore if it upsets you.

 

[icebreaker]

You need education in it from someone. Your standards of civility, courtesy, and decorum needs upgrading judging by your foul-mouthed ranting over the past 30 minutes.

 

[clivex]

Good to see that you and Art can exchange ideas in a civil manner - something which would be aided if you started fewer of your posts with words like "Rubbish" or the likes. You often come across as lacking any respect for other peoples opinions, and you make far more sense, when you adopt a more conciliatory tone.

I get the point that you and Icebreaker are trying to make, which is essentially that Israel just can't be expected to sit there and take it, as it would only invite more attacks onto them. I don't think anyone (on this thread) has suggested that they just sit there and take it. The argument which has raged here is whether Israel's response is proportionate or not.

Again, you (and Ice) appear to take the view that "Shock and Awe" is an appropriate response given the circumstances......and it's really that position which is being questioned.

Arthur's thesis that Israel are held to a higher moral standard is accurate I think - principally for many of the reasons that you yourself would state. But you seem to think that Israel is only doing what any other Western State would do......and I think this is where we essentially diverge.

To use a reference-point that many of us will be familiar with, the IRA conducted bombings and shootings on UK territory for around a quarter of a century - bombings which resulted in many hundreds more deaths and maimings than Hamas have inflicted on Israel since the First Intifada kicked-off.

Not once throughout that 25 year period, did the UK government consider sending the RAF over Belfast, Derry (or anywhere else), with a view to dropping bombs into Republican areas. The UK's relative (overall) circumspection throughout that particular period, is much more reflective of what is an acceptable response to an aggressor, imo.

Absolute drivel

For the very clear reason that the ira wasn't sending 4000 missiles onto the northwest coast.

If the people of Liverpool and Blackpool and my own relatives in southport had to continually live in shelters do you think they would be happy for the uk government to do absolutely nothing?

Yes. There is without doubt a suggestion that they should "take it"


Proportionate is bollocks. It's get the job done with minimum casualties. But get it done

 

[clivex]

Bang on icebreaker.

Can you imagine the squealing if Israel had 20000 troops in gaza?

Ill informed clueless posting

 

[Grasshopper]

You need education in it from someone. Your standards of civility, courtesy, and decorum needs upgrading judging by your foul-mouthed ranting over the past 30 minutes.

I'd rather be a foul-mouthed cu*nt than a condescending pr*ick with a hugely misplaced sense of his own intellect.

If you start a post with :lol: followed by "Oh dear" expect something 'proportionate' back in response, because I won't let that kind of bollocks pass without commenting. I make an exception for Clive and his continued spouting of shi*te, because I've had 10 years to get used to it, and I know that he doesn't let it get personal between us (various PMs over the years will attest to this fact).

You, on the other hand, are a complete no-mark, and I therefore couldn't give a rats ass what your opinion is.

 

[icebreaker]

I'd rather be a foul-mouthed cu*nt than a condescending pr*ick

There you go again. Really, can you not keep a clean tongue in your head for more than a second? You truly are a foul-mouthed little man. Do you speak like this to your family, to your professional work colleagues. Maybe you do, because you know no better?
And no, condescension wasn't my intention. I was trying to advise -- like I would advise my own son if he started spouting verbal filth like that. I would advise him that it isn't "big", it isn't welcome in many strands of society, and it debases both the user and the audience.

___________________________________________

 

[clivex]

I'd rather be a foul-mouthed cu*nt than a condescending pr*ick with a hugely misplaced sense of his own intellect.

If you start a post with :lol: followed by "Oh dear" expect something 'proportionate' back in response, because I won't let that kind of bollocks pass without commenting. I make an exception for Clive and his continued spouting of shi*te, because I've had 10 years to get used to it, and I know that he doesn't let it get personal between us (various PMs over the years will attest to this fact).

You, on the other hand, are a complete no-mark, and I therefore couldn't give a rats ass what your opinion is.

Perfect example not being able to answer the point