Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Professor T

Bombs away in Israel & Gaza.. Again...

244 posts in this topic

Until the people of the middle east accept Isreal, there will be war. I don't see any countries offering to take in the Isreali's if they were to leave. In fact, that is the reason Isreal was set up, because of anti semites who didnt want jews immigrating to their country.

I can see you don't quite understand the situation regarding the occupation. Israelis are not occupying Israel, they are occupying land outwith Israel, outwith their internationally recognised borders. It is only on these parts of land that Israel are required to return, back to israel, from. They invaded these lands in 1967.

Actually Jews were offered two other places as a home after WW2, but they opted to go to what is now Israel, due to religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see you don't quite understand the situation regarding the occupation. Israelis are not occupying Israel, they are occupying land outwith Israel, outwith their internationally recognised borders. It is only on these parts of land that Israel are required to return, back to israel, from. They invaded these lands in 1967.

Actually Jews were offered two other places as a home after WW2, but they opted to go to what is now Israel, due to religion.

I am well aware of history. The 1967 conflict was to stop Palastinians crossing the border through Syria. I am sure that the UK would invade Calais if terrorists were using it as a base to enter England and the local government wasn't acting to stop it.

In fact, i used to be very pro Palastine until i realised my knowledge was from an agenda based liberal media.

Now i don't really care about the historical reasons why Israel is where it is. If i did care about how countries came to be then i would be much more concerned with the plight of the native americans rather than a culture that is still alive and well and could help their own situation by not attacking their neighbours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am well aware of history. The 1967 conflict was to stop Palastinians crossing the border through Syria. I am sure that the UK would invade Calais if terrorists were using it as a base to enter England and the local government wasn't acting to stop it.

1. Crossing into Israel from Syria was only a part of the given reasons. Especially considering the Golan Heights is only one of the three territories they invaded

2. Those you refer to were the Syrian army, not 'terrorists'. And Israel were as guilty as the Syrians in the cross border skirmishes.

3. There are no Palestinians living in the territory you brought up. It is Syria.

4. The reason it seemed clear (and to be honest it still does) that you have little knowledge of this conflict is because you stated, regarding the occupation: 'I don't see any countries offering to take in the Israeli's if they were to leave'. This statement clearly suggests that you thought Israel was the piece of land we were discussing when using the term 'occupation'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fromm BBC live feed

If things escalate in the West Bank, we could be about to witness the third Intifada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Crossing into Israel from Syria was only a part of the given reasons. Especially considering the Golan Heights is only one of the three territories they invaded

2. Those you refer to were the Syrian army, not 'terrorists'. And Israel were as guilty as the Syrians in the cross border skirmishes.

3. There are no Palestinians living in the territory you brought up. It is Syria.

4. The reason it seemed clear (and to be honest it still does) that you have little knowledge of this conflict is because you stated, regarding the occupation: 'I don't see any countries offering to take in the Israeli's if they were to leave'. This statement clearly suggests that you thought Israel was the piece of land we were discussing when using the term 'occupation'.

Actually in addition to what you state the real trigger for the war was Egypt's blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba and it's port for Israel. They were trying to stop food and more importantly, fuel from reaching Israel causing them to be dependent on much more expensive sea routes. Ex, I know you are well informed on this topic and I wonder, have you read Michael Oren's book SIX DAYS OF WAR? I recently finished it and came away understanding that the Arab neighbors COULD have defeated Israel if they had been unified - or even neutral to each other. They were more afraid of moves against each other than they were their problems with the Israelis. It's an interesting read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Crossing into Israel from Syria was only a part of the given reasons. Especially considering the Golan Heights is only one of the three territories they invaded

2. Those you refer to were the Syrian army, not 'terrorists'. And Israel were as guilty as the Syrians in the cross border skirmishes.

3. There are no Palestinians living in the territory you brought up. It is Syria.

4. The reason it seemed clear (and to be honest it still does) that you have little knowledge of this conflict is because you stated, regarding the occupation: 'I don't see any countries offering to take in the Israeli's if they were to leave'. This statement clearly suggests that you thought Israel was the piece of land we were discussing when using the term 'occupation'.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Egypt manges to pull this of then credit goes to them. Remmeber when the Muslim Brotherhood took power that people said that they were going to destory Pyrimids and ban non muslim people in events and such. Well that has not happened. So maybe the Muslim brotherhood is not the route of all evil.

Yep.

Kudos to Egypt & the Musim Brotherhood if they can stop the conflict and prevent a wider war.. & Kudos for trying while the rest of the world just takes sides and feeds their side weapons and support..

What the MSM says about anything shouldn't be taken as gospel. The propagana war has been going on in that region longer than us, and I dare say that much of what all we believe about history is built of lies..

The actions of all parties should be watched closely, there's where the truth lays..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually in addition to what you state the real trigger for the war was Egypt's blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba and it's port for Israel. They were trying to stop food and more importantly, fuel from reaching Israel causing them to be dependent on much more expensive sea routes. Ex, I know you are well informed on this topic and I wonder, have you read Michael Oren's book SIX DAYS OF WAR? I recently finished it and came away understanding that the Arab neighbors COULD have defeated Israel if they had been unified - or even neutral to each other. They were more afraid of moves against each other than they were their problems with the Israelis. It's an interesting read.

Indeed, that was also a given reason, but you grossly over estimate just how much they 'depended' on that oil route. They only received 10% of their oil via that route. Hardly what you would call a crushing blockade.

And I brought up only Syria because the Professor brought it up.

I haven't read it, no, but I have read it being destroyed in a Norman Finkelstein book. You MUST read this: http://www.ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm

It is taken straight from the book I refer to (and own).

The main factor behind Israel's win was the surprise attack that took out all three air forces. This, combined with Israeli superiority in intelligence (listening in to phone calls, well placed spies, etc), and lastly their superior training, all combined to devastating effect. But there is no doubt that with proper unity the Arabs would have fared much better in the '67 war and War of Independence. Not sure if they could have beaten Israel though.

If you are looking to read up on Israel's wars, this book is the most definitive and unbiased source you will find: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bWEV__6BYPgC&dq=Zeev+Maoz,+Defending+the+Holy+Land&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=EXWpTM_ECdO4jAfs2OzxDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's way too early to judge the MB. I only know what they say about themselves and their charter is pretty negative toward ANY non Muslim. Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Give them back their land and, with obvious exception (there will for a long time be a fringe on both sides who will want death to the other, after all the years of mutual hatred), they would not have any need nor desire to launch attacks. And if they did so, THEN Israel would be justified attacking them. THEN the whole world's mindset would change and under those circumstances correctly view Palestinians as the aggressors.

You can see from my thread that Hamas were planning on, and obviously hoping for, long term peace. So there is no reason not to believe that if the land was given back then there would be a solid foundation to build peace on.

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves also?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :P

Unfortunately until guns are ablaze...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.