236 replies to this topic

[freetoroam]

stevewinn, on 19 November 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

The president of the United States of America supports Israels right to defend herself. - what people dont seem to be mentioning is the influence Iran is having on situation. do people really think this is Hamas operating on its own. Think again. Its the puppeteer were after.

President? what people don`t seem to be mentioning is the influence the Jews in America is having over the president.

[ExpandMyMind]

freetoroam, on 19 November 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

President? what people don`t seem to be mentioning is the influence the Jews in America is having over the president.

I believe that Jewish influence over U.S. Presidents, if not senators and congressmen, is over-estimated and at times grossly exaggerated.

After all, Israeli foreign policy takes its leave from its British, U.S. and Russian counterparts. Anything Israel has done, these three countries (and other powerful nations) have been doing for longer and, with a few exceptions, on a far larger scale. Which is why Israel believes it has a right to act in the manner it does. It sees what others get away with and believes it has a right to act in the same manner.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 19 November 2012 - 09:52 PM.

[MichaelW]

ExpandMyMind, on 19 November 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Do the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves also?

I don't think firing rockets at civilian targets for the sole purpose of killing civilians is "self-defence". More like "revenge".

But this is of course, someone who thinks it's perfectly fine to blow up Israeli civilians because they're all in the military.

[freetoroam]

ExpandMyMind, on 19 November 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

I believe that Jewish influence over U.S. Presidents, if not senators and congressmen, is over-estimated and at times grossly exaggerated.

You could be right. BTW, you say it nicely, just like a script straight out of Hollywood.

[ExpandMyMind]

MichaelW, on 19 November 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

I don't think firing rockets at civilian targets for the sole purpose of killing civilians is "self-defence". More like "revenge".

But this is of course, someone who thinks it's perfectly fine to blow up Israeli civilians because they're all in the military.

Well Israel just blew up the house of an 'Hamas official', killing numerous innocents. Can you imagine if Hamas set a bomb off in a cafe because there was an army officer having a coffee there? The reaction would be astounding.

And the sole purpose of the rockets is not to kill civilians. I'm sure they view that as a bonus after all the years of witnessing innocent civilians and family members killed, but the main purpose is to show some form of resistance. Resistance Hamas believes (and with the ratio of rockets to deaths I am inclined to agree) is largely symbolic. A far cry from the days of suicide bombings in civilian population centres.

The fact of the matter is that the blockade of Gaza and the Occupation of the Palestinian Territories is tenfold worse than rockets that hadn't killed anyone in 3 years. It is a weak form of resistance and the only one they have at their disposal. Not right, and a war crime for sure, but I would challenge anyone to put themselves in their position and try to claim they would act any differently.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 19 November 2012 - 10:07 PM.

[freetoroam]

ExpandMyMind, on 19 November 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

I believe that Jewish influence over U.S. Presidents, if not senators and congressmen, is over-estimated and at times grossly exaggerated.

After all, Israeli foreign policy takes its leave from its British, U.S. and Russian counterparts. Anything Israel has done, these three countries (and other powerful nations) have been doing for longer and, with a few exceptions, on a far larger scale. Which is why Israel believes it has a right to act in the manner it does. It sees what others get away with and believes it has a right to act in the same manner.

I agree, with one slight exception, that the British, U.S and Russians did not get their ammo off of Israel.

[Sakari]

ExpandMyMind, on 19 November 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Do the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves also?

Sure, and if they stop harboring terorists they may not need to.

[Sakari]

How come Canada and the US don't have these issues of bombing each other?

Or Germany and France, or Finland and Sweden, or Sweden and Norway, or France and Spain, or, etc,etc,etc,etc........


Sorry, I am tired of reading and hearing about those idiots....." hey Amahd, let's shoot some bombs at our neighbor and see if they do anything, it will be fun "

Why do other Countries need to keep stepping in as a referee.....It has been going on forever, it will not end until there is a winner. ( winner in their minds )





Warning, if you are sensitive to replies, you may not want to read my next line......

Let them kill each other off, let God sort them out.

Edited by Sakari, 19 November 2012 - 11:04 PM.

[ExpandMyMind]

Sakari, on 19 November 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

Sure, and if they stop harboring terorists they may not need to.

Hamas are the democratically elected government, which means that by definition they cannot be terrorists. They can carry out terrorist acts (though they are never referred to as such when it is Britain, or the U.S., or Israel carrying them out), just as Israel has carried out thousands in its history, but that does not make them terrorists.

And they will always need to defend themselves as long as they are an occupied and oppressed people. Hamas have nothing to do with it.

Sakari, on 19 November 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

How come Canada and the US don't have these issues of bombing each other?

Or Germany and France, or Finland and Sweden, or Sweden and Norway, or France and Spain, or, etc,etc,etc,etc........

Um, because none of those you mentioned are actively occupying the other?

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 19 November 2012 - 11:04 PM.

[Sakari]

ExpandMyMind, on 19 November 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

Hamas are the democratically elected government, which means that by definition they cannot be terrorists. They can carry out terrorist acts (though they are never referred to as such when it is Britain, or the U.S., or Israel carrying them out), just as Israel has carried out thousands in its history, but that does not make them terrorists.

And they will always need to defend themselves as long as they are an occupied and oppressed people. Hamas have nothing to do with it.



Um, because none of those you mentioned are actively occupying the other?

Sorry, I have a " relative " ( ex sister, long story ) that after 9/11 became Muslim. She has started a site a while back, " free the detainees" or something to that effect. The main focus of it, and her are " free Palestine "......As said, long story, and I have seen and heard enough from her to know all about it. She has a ton of supporters, from a few Countries.

She was on the " no fly list " for a while also....

And, all of her income comes from State and federal Government, welfare, food stamps, etc....Basically people like me paying for her to support this crap...


Am I bitter, yes.....I have also heard and read enough about Palestine issues from her, and others ( blocked them all ) to see it not from the News.

[shaddow134]

MichaelW, on 19 November 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

I don't think firing rockets at civilian targets for the sole purpose of killing civilians is "self-defence". More like "revenge".

But this is of course, someone who thinks it's perfectly fine to blow up Israeli civilians because they're all in the military.

The IDF seem happy enough to kill Children.

[MichaelW]

ExpandMyMind, on 19 November 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

Well Israel just blew up the house of an 'Hamas official', killing numerous innocents. Can you imagine if Hamas set a bomb off in a cafe because there was an army officer having a coffee there? The reaction would be astounding.

Three Israeli civilians were killed last week when one of those rockets landed in their apartment. The world didn't go apeshit.

Quote

And the sole purpose of the rockets is not to kill civilians.

Then enlighten me o wise one. If a rocket-shaped projectile with a high explosive tip aimed at a civilian area isn't intended to kill civilians, then what is it for? Showing off?

Quote

The fact of the matter is that the blockade of Gaza and the Occupation of the Palestinian Territories is tenfold worse than rockets that hadn't killed anyone in 3 years.

Three people were killed last week. Do you actually bother keeping abreast of events or do you just like wandering in here and waving your opinions around?

[MichaelW]

ExpandMyMind, on 19 November 2012 - 10:59 PM, said:

Hamas are the democratically elected government, which means that by definition they cannot be terrorists.

Is this the same flawed definition system that also says Gaza is occupied and that Israeli apartment blocks are legitimate military targets?

Quote

They can carry out terrorist acts (though they are never referred to as such when it is Britain, or the U.S., or Israel carrying them out), just as Israel has carried out thousands in its history, but that does not make them terrorists.

Then what does it make them then? If an individual or a group commits an act of violence or something similar which is designed purely to instill fear and terror in the conscious of a civilian populace then by definition, they are terrorists.

It's not particularly difficult to understand.

[Black Red Devil]

Professor Buzzkill, on 19 November 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

So what is the answer? Give back the land taken in 1967 so that people who want Israel destroyed have a better vantage point to launch attacks from?

I always thought peace would come with everyone accepting what has happended an getting on with their lives rather than living in the past.

Lets be realistic, how can they get on with their lives when some of their most fertile land is being occupied or cut off(West Bank), they have no infrastructure or commerce because movements in and out of their territory are restricted by a blockade (Gaza).

[Black Red Devil]

Bit of a pity because in recent times there were positive vibes gathering momentum amongst some of the locals on the futuristic possibility that both sides would ditch the Oslo Accords two state solution in favor of a bi-national state solution (one state solution).  Utopia?  Totally IMO, although, who knows, the iron curtain came down almost overnight so....
An interesting book called "Beyond the Two State Solution". seems to explain the pros and cons of this option/solution.  I haven't read it but have been told it's an interesting read.  Probably not what "and then" would want (a bi-national state) since it would probably lead to the permanent demise of Zionism in Israel.

Unfortunately until guns are ablaze...