Voice your opposition to the Israeli actions for the past 65+ years

I did mention Hamas' position which has nothing to do with a two state solution.

However I wasn't arguing or supporting Hamas position, which incidently will fall into line with Fatah and The Two State Solution when the agreed Unity Government elections take place sometime this year, if that happens now Israel have begun their offensive. I was simply quoting that specific paragraph and making a statement which you have subsequently illustrated. Craterloads also made specific mention in his paragraph that the fighting has to stop on both sides he called it the Roundabout..and a settlement t needs to be reached on a two state solution while the blockade and other issues such as illegal settlements in West Bank need to cease. I find it hard to argue against that, you seem to want to make it something it isn't, by introducing something that wasn't stated and ignoring the facts as presented in that paragraph.


The fact that you mentioned impartial whilst quoting a Craterloads post made me assume you were being ironic...

Unless of course by impartial you actually mean "Totally supports Palestine whilst thinking Israel are spawn of the devil"?

What Craterloads ultimately expresses in other posts is irrelevant as I quoted a specific paragraph for a reason and gave that reason..it is not a validation of anything other than the sentiment expressed in the quoted passage. You want to introduce something that wasn't expressed nor quoted, in any case from what I have read Craterloads has not said that Hamas are righteous while Israelis are the "spawn of the devil"... You seem to be intent on creating an argument against what was quoted and in so doing are illustrating the very difficulty you have in doing so without remaining objective and impartial.
 
he's uninformed clearly as he thought the occupation was the gaza offensive.
he likely has no idea that israel snatched land and build settlements where it wasn't legally allowed too or that most countries in the world are against the occupation.

this whole **** would have been finished years ago if it wasn't for america

bin the insults.

We could quite sensibly discuss who killed the three israelis, what their motives were, how this fed into the narrative of the current conflict, but clearly the capacity of the anti israeli circle of love was reached with 'settlements'. Well, it is GD.
 
if you read it again, the first three cities I mentioned are in China and the UK. I did not actually say the Allies were not in danger. I said they might have lost the war but were not in danger of destruction i.e. the Nazis were not calling for ALL Americans/British/Antipodeans to be driven out or killed if they had been defeated which is what Hamas have stated they will do - to Jews in general and not just Zionists.



You can stand by your post, next to it or even below it. Dresden, Osaka, Kobe, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki all happened in 1945 when Germany and Japan were on the ropes militarily. The war was taken to the civilian populations of those countries when the destruction of the British Empire and the USA was not even a remote possibility. The reason they did it was to suppress civilians in the Axis countries and destroy as much materiel as possibly to SWIFTLY end the war and reduce the casualties of ALLIED soldiers and civilians.





So, we agree that Israel could be harsher and chooses not to. How about Hamas? Would you agree that they can be as harsh as they want because as a non-state they lose nothing - every time Israel retaliates and Gazan civilians are (invariably) killed in the process, Hamas use this a political and military gain.



Israel know they cannot eliminate all the tunnels this way...does it mean they should stop trying? Hamas know that until they negotiate in good faith and recognise Israel's right to exist, stop firing rockets into Israel and continue to target civilians (which is an actual war crime btw) they wont achieve much. However, they will continue trying to follow the same old routine.

Let me throw out an idea here. After Israel won the Sinai from Egypt in 1967, when Anwar Sadat wanted the Sinai back, he decided post the defeat in the 1973 Yom Kippur War that he would give diplomacy a real go. Since then, both nations have enjoyed bilateral peace and economic progress.

What about when King Hussein signed a peace treaty in 1994 with Israel. Same result. I put it to you that if Hamas and Fatah would negotiate as above with Israel, they could achieve better results than the current state of affairs.

You tried to compare Israel's actions now with allied action in world war 2 which is laughable.

Hamas can claim what it want so do certain Israeli mps does that mean they pose a real danger?

I still don't get what ww2 bombing has to do with Israeli bombing of Gaza? Unless your trying to say this is what Israel could have done.

Hamas or who ever is in charge do need to negotiate and recognise Israel Right to exist that I agree is the only way to stop all this a 2 state solution. Israel needs to stop settlements and it's blockade in return.
 
You tried to compare Israel's actions now with allied action in world war 2 which is laughable.

Hamas can claim what it want so do certain Israeli mps does that mean they pose a real danger?

I still don't get what ww2 bombing has to do with Israeli bombing of Gaza? Unless your trying to say this is what Israel could have done.

Hamas or who ever is in charge do need to negotiate and recognise Israel Right to exist that I agree is the only way to stop all this a 2 state solution. Israel needs to stop settlements and it's blockade in return.

^bingo
 
Some days I think Overclockers is just 1 person with bi-polar disorder having a arguement with itself over and over again...

I'm pretty sure what ever we say has no input at all.


so

Ring-a-ring o' roses,
A pocket full of posies,
A-tishoo! A-tishoo!

We all fall down
 
I thought the shelling and murder of kids on a beach was bad but they just bombed a hospital and killed a load of people. Just disgusting, the 'Israeli's' never cease to amaze me with their brutal and heartless terror against the Palestinians.
 
Actually, under International Humanitarian Law they have the right to fight against occupation. So yeah, it does excuse it.

I missed the bit in International Humanitarian Law where using kids as suicide bombers is an acceptable way of behaving... (Clue, it doesn't, in fact it prohibits anyone under 18 from taking part in an armed conflict). Hamas also fail in making sure that they always distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Oddly it doesn't really say a lot about fighting against an occupier by indiscriminately firing rockets into civilian areas either.
 
However I wasn't arguing or supporting Hamas position, which incidently will fall into line with Fatah and The Two State Solution when the agreed Unity Government elections take place sometime this year, if that happens now Israel have begun their offensive. I was simply quoting that specific paragraph and making a statement which you have subsequently illustrated. Craterloads also made specific mention in his paragraph that the fighting has to stop on both sides he called it the Roundabout..and a settlement t needs to be reached on a two state solution while the blockade and other issues such as illegal settlements in West Bank need to cease. I find it hard to argue against that, you seem to want to make it something it isn't, by introducing something that wasn't stated and ignoring the facts as presented in that paragraph.

And I was talking about the wider situation rather than restricting the argument to a very narrow quote. As it stands Hamas do not support a two state solution. What is so difficult to see about that? Hamas' position is relevant as they are one of the parties in the conflict.

What Craterloads ultimately expresses in other posts is irrelevant as I quoted a specific paragraph for a reason and gave that reason..it is not a validation of anything other than the sentiment expressed in the quoted passage. You want to introduce something that wasn't expressed nor quoted, in any case from what I have read Craterloads has not said that Hamas are righteous while Israelis are the "spawn of the devil"... You seem to be intent on creating an argument against what was quoted and in so doing are illustrating the very difficulty you have in doing so without remaining objective and impartial.

I am not going to ignore the rest of the stuff that Craterloads posts as it provides context to his views. If you choose to do that, fine but I am not sure why everyone else should follow that restriction.

Frankly I couldn't care less about what you think about my objectiveness, the last time this argument came up I answered it, I see no need to do it again.
 
I missed the bit in International Humanitarian Law where using kids as suicide bombers is an acceptable way of behaving... (Clue, it doesn't, in fact it prohibits anyone under 18 from taking part in an armed conflict). Hamas also fail in making sure that they always distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Oddly it doesn't really say a lot about fighting against an occupier by indiscriminately firing rockets into civilian areas either.

I must have missed the bit about using banned weapons like cluster, nail and chemical bombs directly on hospitals, and other densly civilian populated areas.

The best joke about it all is that Israel claim they give 'notice' of a bomb coming - just pure flippin lol's. Closed borders all around them, exactly where are people supposed to go?.

Anyway - enough's enough - Even the UN have stated it HAS to stop: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28397215

The interesting question is why - even after all this codemnation does Mr cameron still stick to his guns claiming defense for the Israeli's? - Is it because he has Jewish lineage (and has boasted about this in the past) - or is it because he was an honarary member of the racist JNF group for quite a while? does make one wonder where the UK's foreign secretary is in all this too!

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-labour-mp-barry-sheerman-7447299
 
Last edited:
I must have missed the bit about using banned weapons like cluster and nail bombs directly on hospitals, and other densly civilian populated areas.

No, that's wrong too, but then I wasn't the one the brought up International Humanitarian Law.

The interesting question is why - even after all this codemnation does Mr cameron still stick to his guns claiming defense for the Israeli's? - Is it because he has Jewish lineage (and has boasted about this in the past) - or is it because he was an honarary member of the racist JNF group for quite a while? does make one wonder where the UK's foreign secretary is in all this too!

And now we are back to frothing loon...
 
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/07/21/372201/israel-drops-phosphorus-bombs-on-gaza/



If this was ANY other country on the planet the US would be rallying up military action support as we speak.

shake an bake would say otherwise.


also you keep mentioning nails bombs, wouldn't that be the Palestinians, why would israel need to use nails?

they have much more sophisticated and effective shrapnel, heck even a properly cast, etched or milled casing would be better than nails and they come as standard.
 
And I was talking about the wider situation rather than restricting the argument to a very narrow quote. As it stands Hamas do not support a two state solution. What is so difficult to see about that? Hamas' position is relevant as they are one of the parties in the conflict.

If you wanted to talk about that then why respond to my post which clearly was in reference to a two state solution and Craterloads view rather than that of Hamas, your post effectively was mooted at the outset as the paragraph clearly stated the position of a settlement of a Two State Solution, a cessation of the fighting on both sides, so whatever Hamas' current position is (and that is unclear as Hamas demands no longer call for the destruction of Israel) are not relevant as it was Craterloads sentiment to which I was referencing, not Hamas.

I am not going to ignore the rest of the stuff that Craterloads posts as it provides context to his views. If you choose to do that, fine but I am not sure why everyone else should follow that restriction.

No one said you should, but again why respond to my post which was specific in its attribution...if you wanted to make a wider statement about other things he may of said, or Hamas in general then do so, it has nothing to do with the paragraph Craterloads made and I quoted, merely because at the beginning of that paragraph Craterloads expressly states he is not focusing on the wider conflict but on dealing with a solution to the issues in the now.

Frankly I couldn't care less about what you think about my objectiveness, the last time this argument came up I answered it, I see no need to do it again.

Good, because I think you have overstepped your assumptions, you know it and are now attempting to extricate yourself instead of looking rather foolish as your post only reenforces the position that it is difficult to argue against that specific sentiment expressed by Craterloads while remaining impartial. ;)
 
Last edited:
I would respectfully point out that WP munitions are only banned if they are used with flammability as their primary purpose. If it is a secondary or ancillary purpose then they are not banned hence their usage following the bans without breaching the rules. It is good to see they are not using them though now as there are plenty of alternatives to suit the same purpose and you have to wonder what the screen is actually for in this case as I find a hard time seeing how they would actually need one.
 
I would respectfully point out that WP munitions are only banned if they are used with flammability as their primary purpose. If it is a secondary or ancillary purpose then they are not banned hence their usage following the bans without breaching the rules. It is good to see they are not using them though now as there are plenty of alternatives to suit the same purpose and you have to wonder what the screen is actually for in this case as I find a hard time seeing how they would actually need one.

Indeed, however the protocols do ban the use of white phosphorus against civilian populations OR in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas. Arguably using the weapon in Gaza is contrary to that protocol whatever the justification.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom