Fred1new
- 06 Jan 2009 19:21
Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?
If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?
Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?
What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?
cynic
- 22 Jan 2009 19:54
- 541 of 6906
yawn!
Ruth
- 22 Jan 2009 20:14
- 542 of 6906
Cynic, aw bless are you tired?
im sure Fred will tuck you in and give you a goodnight kiss if you ask nicely,
If he can drag himself away from the crappy bbc news that is,
cynic
- 22 Jan 2009 21:02
- 543 of 6906
sure am .... abused myself last night!
Fred1new
- 22 Jan 2009 21:59
- 544 of 6906
Halifax, You are writing common sense. Many on this board are unable to or don't want to recognise it.
Rather than sensible rebuttals they find it necessary to become abusive.
Suggest viewing listening the whole of below
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/when+are+military+bombs+illegal/2909122
and making you own deductions.
Gausie
- 23 Jan 2009 01:16
- 546 of 6906
The situation in the middle east cannot be dismissed as simply a land dispute. For the Palestinians it's a land dispute, for israelis it's survival.
Agree with Halifax - eventually this will have to be settled by debate. In the meantime I have to agree with a statement Netanyahu made a few years back:
"If the Palestinians abandoned their arms there would be no more bloodshed. If the Israelis abandoned their arms there would be no more Israel."
cynic
- 23 Jan 2009 08:13
- 547 of 6906
from memory, netanyahu was pretty right wing (bellicose), but no matter ..... certainly if israel abandoned its settlements on west bank as instructed by un, then a lot of the heat would be taken out of the whole scenario.
and of course, if the politicians on all (not just both!) sides had a will to find a sensible and realistic solution for long term peace, then no doubt it could be found ..... but then of course, if pigs had wings
sivad
- 23 Jan 2009 09:31
- 548 of 6906
:
What really is behind the numbers reported on the number of civilian casualties in the Gaza Strip? Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera reported Thursday that a doctor working in Gaza's Shifa Hospital claimed that Hamas has intentionally inflated the number of casualties resulting from Israel's Operation Cast Lead.
"The number of deceased stands at no more than 500 to 600. Most of them are youths between the ages of 17 to 23 who were recruited to the ranks of Hamas, who sent them to the slaughter," according to the newspaper article....
A Tal al-Hawa resident told the newspaper's reporter, "Armed Hamas men sought out a good position for provoking the Israelis. There were mostly teenagers, aged 16 or 17, and armed. They couldn't do a thing against a tank or a jet. They knew they are much weaker, but they fired at our houses so that they could blame Israel for war crimes."
The reporter for the Italian newspaper also quoted reporters in the Strip who told of Hamas' exaggerated figures, "We have already said to Hamas commanders why do you insist on inflating the number of victims?"
These same reporters mentioned that the truth that will come out is likely to be similar to what occurred in Operation Defensive Shield in Jenin. "Then, there was first talk of 1,500 deaths. But then it turned out that there were only 54, 45 of which were armed men," the Palestinian reporters told the Italian newspaper.
cynic
- 23 Jan 2009 09:34
- 549 of 6906
for sure hamas will inflate the figures, but that is standard and has been practiced for centuries
Gausie
- 23 Jan 2009 09:40
- 550 of 6906
... but still you like to quote them.
cynic
- 23 Jan 2009 09:46
- 551 of 6906
not i ..... you and i just happen to disagree on how we interpret the bits we read and see on tv ..... the stuff sivad quotes above i discard out of hand, though on the other hand, i am far from convinced that israel did not use white phosphorus bombs - jury's out on that
Gausie
- 23 Jan 2009 10:48
- 552 of 6906
Cynic - as I understand it there is already an investigation underway on the phosphorous allegation. The Israeli public will be outraged if it's true.
cynic
- 23 Jan 2009 10:52
- 553 of 6906
i think so too ..... watch and wait ...... will that be disproportionate if so proven? .... don't answer that - lol!
Gausie
- 23 Jan 2009 11:40
- 554 of 6906
It would be criminal. If you mean to equate the words disproportionate and criminal then you'll have to accuse Hamas of using 'disproportionate force' in their rocket attacks. And a mealy mouthed western apologist pro-jihadi wouldnt want to do that now, would he?
cynic
- 23 Jan 2009 11:52
- 555 of 6906
me pro-jihad? ..... where on earth did you get that disproportionate adjective from?
Gausie
- 23 Jan 2009 12:22
- 556 of 6906
It was used as a noun. The 'mealy mouthed western apologist' bit that you didn't object to were used as adjectives.
cynic
- 23 Jan 2009 12:29
- 557 of 6906
glad i rarely take offense - lol!
in my own mind at least, i try to form a balanced view ..... i would certainly fight very hard for israel's right to exist .... i would also like to see that nation living peaceably with its neighbours, but all parties involved don't seem to consider that a "fun" idea and would rather punch 7 bells out of each other.
and yes, i still hold the view that israel's general treatment of the palestinians is pretty despicable and their present military action disproportionate
Gausie
- 23 Jan 2009 12:41
- 558 of 6906
..... i would certainly fight very hard for israel's right to exist ....
... but not, it seems, for its right to defend itself.
cynic
- 23 Jan 2009 13:06
- 559 of 6906
i never said that, and well you know it
as a reasonable parallel, had british army waded in with tanks and bombs against IRA, that too would have been disproportionate
Gausie
- 23 Jan 2009 13:15
- 560 of 6906
I didn't say you did.
But virtually all of your posts strike out at Israel with your allegations of disproportionate force, and yet you haven't once suggested how Israel might defend itself military and effectively whilst staying within whatever parameters you secretly use to define proportionality. And you continue to refuse to be drawn on what those parameters are.
If, as you imply in your post 559, that you would in fact fight very hard for Israel's right to defend itself then please excuse me for pointing out that your very hard fight for that right has so far seemed worse than a bit wimpy on this thread.
G