Netanyahu's victims

That is a complete misinterpretation, clive.

No-one.....and I mean no-one.....on this thread has ever suggested that Israel "refuse to take any action". The discussion has been about whether the action they are taking is proportionate or not. You really should retract that last post - it's not on.

I have a degree of sympathy with your position. Indeed, I could not reasonably expect Israel to just sit back and take it. Furthermore, I don't honestly know what form a 'proportionate reponse' might take. But I know what 'disproportionate' looks and feels like (it very-much being a personal thing) and Israel's actions fall into that bracket.

It serves limited tactical purpose - any gains in terms of reducing attacks likely to be very-short-term - and doesn't serve Israel's alleged strategic aim of a two-State solution....though there are obviously some in the Israeli government who now think even that is a bad idea, so perhaps it does).

You mentioned Sri Lanka's attacks on the Tamils much earlier in the thread, and I think the point you made is a fair one. At the risk of using another "reference-point", I concede SL's bomb-into-submission approach on the Tamils, was every bit as abhorrent - probably even moreso, I'd say - as Israel's campaign in Gaza......and yet we were largely silent. To that extent, you're right to question why Israel get the 'special case' treatment.

My honest answer to that question is that SL is simply too remote, and had negligible if any impact on Western States. Israel, by dint of its location, its confrontational diplomacy with some of its neighbours, iis position as a staunch Western ally, its position as a beacon of democracy in a sea of theocracies/monarchies/dictatorships, and (yes) its occupation.....all of these are reasons why it generates so much more interest than similar trocities carried-out by Sri Lanka.

It's only natural, in my view. There is a gruesome fascination with the entire dynamic, that is missing from the SL conflict.
 
Last edited:
Oh international law entitles Israel to self-defence Clive, I don't think that's being disputed. What we're talking about is the appropriate level of response.

So I'll ask you again since your entire argument is falling apart, or the rationale behind it is, but let's pick apart what you've meekly put up so far in your attempts to wriggle

"Stupid point. The birmingham pub bombings were not missiles from a location and were not a daily sustained attack over a period of years.

Ridiculous"

So you seem to be under the impression that a country can only be considered to be under attack if missiles are in use. It's a bizzarre interpretation, but in the name of good sport I'll humour you. In 1991 the IRA launched a mortar attack against the British Cabinet in Downing Street. This was their second direct attack following Brighton, at the seat of Government (Hamas aren't remotely close to this level of capacity). Mortars are missiles in the code of warfare. In 1994 they did the same at Heathrow, when jets continued to land for half an hour with two unexploded mortars lying on the runway. They also rountinely used mortars to attack police stations. So having hopefully satisfied you that the IRA also used missiles in their campaigns, you'll now accept that you can apply the same rationale you are doing? These later ones were fired from locations, and since the IRA claimed repsonsibility for each and every one of them, we can point to a broad location similar in size to the Gaza Strip as to where we think they've originated. All the terms that you seem to think distinguish the two, don't. So it's green light time then?

Your other major sticking point is that the Birmingham bombs "were not a daily sustained attack over a period of years".

It's such a laughable position to adopt it shouldn't even need responding to. In fact you should be embarrassed to be offering it in all seriousness

Just for your own military reference, neither were the 9/11 attacks against the Pentagon sustained over a period of years (the WTC had been attacked previously). In fairness this limp argument (in fact I won't even credit it with the status of 'argument'). This non argument is so poor you'd be better off trying to change the subject. Are you seriously suggesting the threat could only be considered a threat, if the IRA were attacking the same pub every week? Even you must accept that the IRA ran campaign that endured for longer than the Hamas rocket attacks. I'm quite happy to provide you the dates if you don't believe me, but trust me, they did.

Your final point is wrong - pure and simple

"Dont come out with that.

Body counts are secondary to intent. Hamas makes it clear that they would go to any lengths to maximise deaths of jews".

Body counts are most certainly not of secondary importance to intent. Someone who says "I hate you, I wish you were dead" is committing the graver act through their expressed intent, then someone who silently picks up a nice big knife and slides into them? Are you for real? I'd like to try and see you defend that line in a court of law and see what happens to you.

In fact there's an even more hysterical example of how warped your thinking is, but I won't raise it fear that it provides you with a distraction to get yourself off the hook

So I ask you again (not that I expect an answer)

At what point would you have authorised the RAF to carpet bomb Belfast?

You could have used Tornados squadrons of 12 carrying eight 500Ib each. That's just short of 50,000 tonnes of explosive on a single mission. Over a 4 week period you could have dropped 1.3M tonnes on Belfast Clive. Now you will have killed a lot of catholic civilians in this process, but that doesn't matter does it, it's there fault for having some hidden sentimental sympathy, and for living in the same post code as Jerry's 2nd cousin four times removed - right?

The way I see your logic is that you have two choices

1: Admit that this is the line of policy you'd have adopted (plenty of brain dead right wing reactionaries did) I certainly heard enough people saying bomb the **** of Belfast etc

2: Perhaps consider that you could be wrong on the whole issue, and therefore go back and revisit the whole idea of what is both appropriate and a strategically sensible response
 
I do agree about the two state solution and wish to hell they had not settled the West Bank and just got the bloody thing out of the way. It was there in the table and rejected though

Have to remember that Sri Lanka probably directly has more links with the uk ? Commonwealth etc. And given that this is driven seemingly as a numbers game. ...40000 were killed there

I would take the point and greys that Israel is seen very much as part of the west and yes there are expected standards. Having said that, that is certainly no the reason for so many foaming at the mouth. But we've been over that
 
icebreaker said:
And neither did the Israeli's "carpet bomb" Gaza City in the current conflict. Airstrikes were strategic and against selective targets.

You can talk all you want about the "low" casualty rate resulting from Hamas rockets, be it 13 or 41. In the same period (since 2001) over 600 Israeli citizens have been killed by palestinian suicide bombers detonating their devices in Israel's cities.

How many British citizens have been killed by IRA rockets fired into British mainland territory? None, because no rockets were fired. Still, that did not deter Britain from sending a large-scale military force into N. Ireland to deal with the problem, and rightly so. Would you and similar minded Palestinian sympathisers on here agree with Britain's response at the time? If so, how can you condemn Israel for also responding to an even worse terrorist threat?
Click to expand...

First case suicide bombers don't count because they aren't missiles (Clive logic)

The IRA did use missiles (mortars are considered missiles)

The British troops were put in there to protect catholics being burned out their own homes

And finally I'll ask you the same question. At what point if you were British Prime Minister would you have authorised the bombing (and don't try and tell me this is strategic and targeted - far too many people who are clearly non combatants are being killed and injured to sustain that pretence)

So answer the question. At what point would you have carpet bombed and even tried to bomb strategically the catholic housing estates of Belfast? We only want to know where you would have drawn the line, as clearly you would have done
 
I think they tryed to hit the MI6 building at one point in the late 90's or early millenium if memory serves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAPQhFTcs9Q
Yes...Some bits above which are interesting to watch back.
A reference to the attack on Downing Street in 1991 you mentioned, Warbler.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is strategically targeted.

This isn't worth answering with claims of carpet bombing. When the Palestinians were even texted on heir phones to get out of the way of the hamas rocket launchers? And told exactly where the targeting would be?

Are you completely unaware of hamas using so called human shields to maximise casualties? To make it as difficult as possible to engage ?

I would bomb a country that was launching missiles at mine. Especially as it is clearly continuous and no other solution in sight.Who wouldnt?

So what would you do if Liverpool and Blackpool were continually sheltering from missile attacks over a periods of years. What would you as prime minster (or dictator) suggest to the population of those cities? What reassurance could you give that it would not escalate, given the enemies intention to "wipe off the planet"?
 
Last edited:
OK I'm prepared to accept that it isn't carpet bombing in the traditional definition of X number of square miles aka Dresden, but there is still a very high proportion of civilian casualties to suggest that the precautionary principle isn't being followed

The text message service has been stopped last time I knew Clive

But again, let's return to the question you're ducking. Would you have strategically bombed the catholic housing estates of Belfast in retaliation, and done so in the knowledge that you would kill more innocents than guiltys, but would in all likelihood manage to kill some of those involved with the IRA too.
 
Wrong again. It is not retaliation. That would be after the missiles stopped . They haven't

And they have broken every ceasefire too
 
Last edited:
The ceseation of an action doesn't frame the end of a retalitory period. You can retaliate against someone once the initial reaction has been committed and in situ of a contemporary action.

But all of your flannelling about now under a smokescreen of linguistic semantics only serves to emphasise to anyone reading this that you aren't answering the question

Would you, or would you not have used the RAF to bomb Belfast? Remember the IRA had also expressed the sentiment that they wanted to kill you. Indeed, they'd gobe further than that. They'd assasinated MP's, including one in the car park at the House of Commons, assoicated members of the Royal family (Mountbatten) tried to kidnap a Princess, and they'd twice made direct attempts against the British government and Prime Minister

It's a yes or no Clive, and under your own logic I really don't see how you could sustain anything other than an enthusiastic yes.
 
Oh this is starting to get a bid tedious

Clive is struggling with the basics of an alcoholic in denial

lets help him

Despite doing a passable impression for a bone head hopeless right winger, it should be apparent to all by now that Clive wouldn't actually as gone as far as deploying the RAF against Belfast - right Clive?
 
What's tedious is hat I've already answered that. inthe very unlikely event that he ira was continually launching thosuands of missiles from various sites in ulster at cities in the north west over a number of years and there was no other realistic option, then of course there would be a military response. Invasion or bombing.,

You will not give an alternative and the rest of the post is beneath contempt which means its time to take my leave
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
The IRA did use missiles (mortars are considered missiles)/
Click to expand...
But in the context of this thread -- the Israeli/Gaza issue -- we are discussing the use of missiles launched by one de jure sovereign entity (Gaza) on to another (Israel). IRA mortars were fired from within the jurisdiction of the UK, not from another jurisdiction.
The British troops were put in there to protect catholics being burned out their own homes
Click to expand...
And not long afterwards British troops were shooting dead 13 unarmed catholics on Bloody Sunday.


And finally I'll ask you the same question. At what point if you were British Prime Minister would you have authorised the bombing (and don't try and tell me this is strategic and targeted - far too many people who are clearly non combatants are being killed and injured to sustain that pretence)

So answer the question. At what point would you have carpet bombed and even tried to bomb strategically the catholic housing estates of Belfast? We only want to know where you would have drawn the line, as clearly you would have done
Click to expand...
You have honourably recognised that Israel has not carpet bombed Gaza. But to answer your question; no I would not have aerially bombed Belfast. No country -- outside of outright civil war -- bombs its own territory. No country bombs itself unless it is deranged.
However, the British armed forces did selectifly target IRA individuals for elimination on the ground as you well know. You're familiar with Loughgall, no doubt, and many other instances. All of which were and would be acceptable.

________________________________________
 
Clivex, you need to empty/clean your inbox, bud. 'Tis full to overflowing, I am prevented from replying to your PM.
 
If west Belfast had been bombed by the RAF, I reckon the IRA's strategists would have been pleased.
 
clivex said:
What's tedious is hat I've already answered that. inthe very unlikely event that he ira was continually launching thosuands of missiles from various sites in ulster at cities in the north west over a number of years and there was no other realistic option, then of course there would be a military response. Invasion or bombing.,
Click to expand...

It's a position similar to Obama's and his chemical weapon stance on Syria then?

You can shoot and bomb people (as if that's somehow a good way of being killed) but you can't use chemical weapons. The end result for a civilian is pretty much the same.

I'm struggling to see why you're so hung up about rockets. These are pretty ineffective weapons. I know I'd rather live under the threat of Hamas rocket attack then I would having to be wary every time I ventured onto a bus, or went into a crowded public space looking for the slightly swathy skinned nervous looking youth wearing an additional layer of clothing that the weather didn't seem to justify. The suicide bomber is going to kill more people and is easier to position in the field. I wouldn't be surprised if we see commercial drones put to use next as they could carry about 15Ibs of semtex and be flown direct at a target rather than these rockets which are tantamount to standing at the foot of your garden blindfolded and lobbing a dart at a dartboard

Anyway, you have now admitted that you personally would have been prepared to bomb Belfast albeit there is the understandable caveat attached to that which I'll interpret as something akin to as a 'last resort', which I think you'd be entitled to invoke

I won't get involved in the argument of "realistic" options by way of alternatives as that will be a cul de sac, other than to say there are always 'options' and even the option of aerial bombing is largely defined by how its prosecuted. The Israeli's seem to adopting a strategy that allows them to drop if in doubt, whereas a lot of what the RAF did in places like Iraq (the USAF less so) adopted the negative if in doubt
 
icebreaker said:
And not long afterwards British troops were shooting dead 13 unarmed catholics on Bloody Sunday.
Click to expand...

Precisely, but isn't that a big part of the thought process that goes into these things as Art has pretty well hinted at

Martin McGuiness has clearly said that before bloody sunday the IRA had problems recruiting in Derry. After bloody sunday they never had a problem again.

We've seen it play out on a much larger scale in Iraq, prompting that hilarious justification from George W Bush "that they sure as hell have now"

It's nearly always the case that unless you're going to embark on a 'final solution' the more civilians you kill collaterally, the more terrorists you recruit. We've killed a fightening number in Afghanistan (a lot more than we're being told) but they just keep coming
 
Grasshopper said:
I disagree wholly with your previous and re-stated assertion, that the Israeli incursion into Gaza is a response to the minute improvement in US/Iranian relations.
Click to expand...

Not very hard to see how several events (incursion into Gaza) and political differences (Iran V Isreal) can morph into another problem for the Whitehouse.

I don't think the West reaching out to Iran last year has caused Isreal's actions (that would make me a bit a bit crazed:)), but I do think that the verocity of their millitary response was with future geopolitcal ramifications in mind.

Like the Islamic Millitants in Iraq/Syria ,I'm sure the latest reports about Isreali drones shot down by Iran & them speeding up weapons supply to Hamas have been prepared for already by the Isreali's.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/iran-speed-arming-palestinians-israeli-drone-downed-110749524.html#mTDsihJ
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
If west Belfast had been bombed by the RAF, I reckon the IRA's strategists would have been pleased.
Click to expand...

An astute response in the context of the ferocity of Israel's response thus far Art. There is a significant dose of perspective missing from this thread and that sums up for me just how Israel is playing into Hammas hands.

I'm sure the point you make will continue to sail over the heads of those who simply want a dust up, and still 20 pages later can't grasp the basic context of the position the rest of us take around proportionality., and try to turn it into something else. The problem is the point is impossible to argue against so it's easier to deflect, demean, and to call us anti-Semitic, which is absolutely ridiculous.

The question I keep coming back to is why? What agenda? Is it more personal than has been said? Or am I overthinking it, and it's simply about attention?
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
It's nearly always the case that unless you're going to embark on a 'final solution' the more civilians you kill collaterally, the more terrorists you recruit.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the issue you raised by your question demonstrates that Britain -- like any other country -- did and would respond very decisively when it comes under attack. Britain put thousands of troops on the ground in N. Ireland; it fought a no-holds-barred war with the IRA; put a few thousand people into internment camps and tortured them ( as found by the European Commission of Human Rights); was content to have 10 prisoners in HM Maze prison die on hunger strike including an elected Member of Parliament; and introduced direct rule from Westminster.
Any country will respond to threat, Israel is no different yet it is vilified for it.
 
And then Britain killed more than 2000 civilians in a month, limited electricity supply, and left much of the general populous at crisis point over food and water.

Thankyou for demonstrating the second point made in my previous post almost perfectly.
 
Maruco said:
An astute response in the context of the ferocity of Israel's response thus far Art. There is a significant dose of perspective missing from this thread and that sums up for me just how Israel is playing into Hammas hands.

I'm sure the point you make will continue to sail over the heads of those who simply want a dust up, and still 20 pages later can't grasp the basic context of the position the rest of us take around proportionality., and try to turn it into something else. The problem is the point is impossible to argue against so it's easier to deflect, demean, and to call us anti-Semitic, which is absolutely ridiculous.

The question I keep coming back to is why? What agenda? Is it more personal than has been said? Or am I overthinking it, and it's simply about attention?
Click to expand...

Everyone knows it's exactly what hamas wants. Hasn't that been stated throughout he thread? Everyone knows that hamas are doing heir upmost to maximise casualties.

What do you contribute? Nothing

All talk about "proportionality" but not one suggestion, not even the slightest of what you would expect a leader and a state to do in similar circumstances.

The whiff that "they should take it" remains

At least grasshopper admitted he had no idea what israels action should be but how many times does it need stating that doing nothing is not an option under any circumstances

The Belfast compassion is completely ridiculous. Different circumstances, different threat and different intentions and aims by the ira. Vastly differnet

All i will say is that the weak patroninsing comments and stupid insults of some replies illustrates perfectly the struggle to respond
 
Last edited:
I will repeat for the umpteenth time that i dont expect Israel to do nothing, and have never said so. However, I would expect a leader to exercise a response that is proportionate to the threat. in this case to deploy ground troops to get the job done. I'm not suggesting there wouldn't be air support, but I do suggest strongly that 2000 and rising innocent Palestinians including very many women and children didn't need to die.

I'm not sure how many ways you need me to reiterate my position Clive and why you would construe it as a struggle to respond. In fact on the contrary I have asked you very specifically what you believe the solution to be, and each and every time you've ignored it. Do you actually read or do you just skim threads? If you do actually go back and read them you'll realise just how wide of the mark your last post is.
 
Back
Top