[Archived] Ashamed

[jim mk2]

Bomber Harris never hid from the fact he believed area bombing of the German cities was the right strategy. It was war. Right and wrong goes out of the window. Your mistake.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Of course, negotiate with those who wish destruction upon Israel.

Negotiations will have to take place at some point. Sooner or later the Arab states will be in a more militarily advantagagous position, then it may be too for Israel.

[Blue n White Rover]

An absolute joke what Israel are doing to the Palestinians. The excuse that they use is that they are defending their country? Israel launched the first attack on Palestine. Do they not have the right to defend themselves.

Israel are killing little children, one as young as 1 year old. An absolute disgrace. Gaza has no Army, no Navy, no air Force. This is not war. This is genocide.

60+ Palestinians have been killed and prior to these attacks, F16 drones hover above the night sky of Gaza. Attacks have been made last night on journalists, graveyards and civilian populated area.

The injustice is shown in this picture:

http://www.sott.net/image/image/9591/israel-palestine_map.jpg

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Bomber Harris never hid from the fact he believed area bombing of the German cities was the right strategy. It was war. Right and wrong goes out of the window. Your mistake.

That puts you at odds with just about every nation on the planet then. But I guess at least you won't be concerned next time a British soldier is killed by an IED or an Israeli child finds themselves under a rocket, after all, it's war. Civilian hostages, tortured POWs, massacred children, who cares, right? It's ok, because they're at war.

Depending how you want to look at it, 9/11, Madrid, 7/7....all acts of war, so it's ok.

Strange way of looking at the world, but as long as you apply the same standards to everyone then fair enough.

[jim mk2]

No one says these things are acceptable but they happen in wars. It's not a tea party, or as some might say s*** happens.

Your utopian view of the world is admirable. Please let me know when you've joined the real one.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

It's not utopian by any means, but I do believe that when regrettable things must happen you should still limit it to what you have to do. When there's a price to be paid for our way of life then it must be us making the sacrifice, not someone else's civilians.

There haven't been any wars in my lifetime that were actually necessary to defend my freedom, so it's hard to dream up a reason for the massive numbers of foreign civilians that have died under British fire, and it's hard to see the kinds of people that BAE sell weapons to in the name of profit while the government that subsidises them talks about human rights.

Is it utopian to think that human life should be more highly prized than profits?

If it is then fine, I'm a dreamer.

[thenodrog]

That puts you at odds with just about every nation on the planet then. But I guess at least you won't be concerned next time a British soldier is killed by an IED or an Israeli child finds themselves under a rocket, after all, it's war. Civilian hostages, tortured POWs, massacred children, who cares, right? It's ok, because they're at war.

Depending how you want to look at it, 9/11, Madrid, 7/7....all acts of war, so it's ok.

Strange way of looking at the world, but as long as you apply the same standards to everyone then fair enough.

Your brand of hindsight is brilliant isn't it? No one knew then what the outcome of WW2 was going to be so it was gloves off and fight clean, dirty or any which way to win and survive. The population in all countries involved would have accepted any measures for victory and preservation of our society. If WW2 had gone on much longer it's generally accepted that Germany was well down the road to producing a nuclear weapon! How'd you like to see Hiroshima or Negasaki happen to London, Liverpool or Manchester just because we took the foot off the gas? That was the real background to the final war years although some reports suggest that the Dresden was bombed to disssuade Stalin from Soviet expansionism. War is not a time for hand wringing and theorising.... leave that to the losers and the dead.

Just as an aside if Germany had won and GB and Europe had succumbed under the 3rd Reich to facist govt you'd have gone down an absolute bomb raising highbrow objections in the compulsory Hitler youth post school meetings whilst all the other British kids goosestepped their boots up your arse wouldn't you? The fact that you can write and speak the bilge you do is because someone made unpalatable decisions, and thank God they did.

Consider the recent conflicts with Iraq... If Bush Senior had listened to Thatcher and not pussyfooted about afraid of irrelevent opinion then he'd have carried on up the road to Basra and Baghdad binned off Hussein and the second gulf war would have been totally avoided. How many lives would that have saved?

[jim mk2]

It's not utopian by any means, but I do believe that when regrettable things must happen you should still limit it to what you have to do. When there's a price to be paid for our way of life then it must be us making the sacrifice, not someone else's civilians.

There haven't been any wars in my lifetime that were actually necessary to defend my freedom, so it's hard to dream up a reason for the massive numbers of foreign civilians that have died under British fire, and it's hard to see the kinds of people that BAE sell weapons to in the name of profit while the government that subsidises them talks about human rights.

Is it utopian to think that human life should be more highly prized than profits?

If it is then fine, I'm a dreamer.

Ludicrous nonsense, and divorced from any reality.

[thenodrog]

It's not utopian by any means, but I do believe that when regrettable things must happen you should still limit it to what you have to do. When there's a price to be paid for our way of life then it must be us making the sacrifice, not someone else's civilians.

If it is then fine, I'm a dreamer.

Time for Bullshit Man to make an appearence!

What rubbish you spout at times. You have taken absolutely no account of who were the aggressors and what would be the consequences if Germany had won the War.

[Amo]

What rubbish you spout at times. You have taken absolutely no account of who were the aggressors...

Then do be so kind as to tell us the aggressors, Drog.

...and what would be the consequences if Germany had won the War.

Don't mention the war!

And the answer to your question: Not a lot.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Your brand of hindsight is brilliant isn't it? No one knew then what the outcome of WW2 was going to be so it was gloves off and fight clean, dirty or any which way to win and survive. The population in all countries involved would have accepted any measures for victory and preservation of our society. If WW2 had gone on much longer it's generally accepted that Germany was well down the road to producing a nuclear weapon! How'd you like to see Hiroshima or Negasaki happen to London, Liverpool or Manchester just because we took the foot off the gas? That was the real background to the final war years although some reports suggest that the Dresden was bombed to disssuade Stalin from Soviet expansionism. War is not a time for hand wringing and theorising.... leave that to the losers and the dead.

Just as an aside if Germany had won and GB and Europe had succumbed under the 3rd Reich to facist govt you'd have gone down an absolute bomb raising highbrow objections in the compulsory Hitler youth post school meetings whilst all the other British kids goosestepped their boots up your arse wouldn't you? The fact that you can write and speak the bilge you do is because someone made unpalatable decisions, and thank God they did.

Consider the recent conflicts with Iraq... If Bush Senior had listened to Thatcher and not pussyfooted about afraid of irrelevent opinion then he'd have carried on up the road to Basra and Baghdad binned off Hussein and the second gulf war would have been totally avoided. How many lives would that have saved?

The war would have been won without carpet bombing German cities, perhaps that is another advantage of hindsight, but then if people thought about the consequences of their actions we probably wouldn't have ended up with WWII because the peace talks after WWI would have been used to build for the future rather than cripple Germany. Acting with flagrant self-interest always comes back to bite you sooner or later.

And that brings me on to the Gulf War. Had Britain and America not meddled in the Middle East to try and control the oil fields discovered around Mosul in the early part of the last century then Iraq would have been a completely different country. Had the same nations not supplied Saddam Hussein with weapons and backed his aggression against Iran then we would have saved plenty of lives. Had we not imposed futile sanctions against Iraq we would have saved yet more.

What would Iran look like now if Britain and America hadn't overthrown Mossadegh? What would have become of Chile had America not done away with Allende? Would the people of Congo have suffered so much had the US refrained from removing Lumumba? Would bombs be falling on Gaza tonight if we hadn't tried to protect our own interests in Palestine?

There's a long list of situations that we created for ourselves, Germany very much being one of them. Now, you can dismiss this as revisionist history if you like, but when a strong pattern emerges it is usually wise to learn from it rather than continually believing that next time will be different. You can disagree, but considering how different the post-WWII peace terms were, I'd say that even the Allies couldn't ignore that the terms they had previously imposed on Germany had been the biggest cause of the rise of fascism.

But hey, I'm probably completely off base and all this would have happened without our misdeeds. Maybe. But it's pointless arguing about it because you'll always be convinced that moral double-standards are acceptable and I never will.

[ABBEY]

jeru....WTF HAS GERMAN BOMBINGS GOT TO DO WITH THE RELASE OF THE SCUMMY keaner

[Steve Moss]

Dresden wasn't a "defenceless" city. Like all German cities it was a key industrial and transport hub and a legitimate target for the Allies. The controversy over Dresden was the timing of the raid in the final months of the war.

+1

Exactly. If Israel gets it wrong just once it will cease to exist. It only exists now because of it's military strength. The Arab nations would destroy it if they could without a second thought.

+1

If Steve Moss is still checking in on this thread, look at the picture of little Ranan Arafat and then tell me how you feel knowing that your tax dollars have paid for this girl's death. Would you be ok with that happening to your daughter just because you live in a neighbourhood where someone has placed a rocket launcher? If not, then why is it ok to pay for it to happen to someone else's daughter?

It is horrible that a small, innocent child was killed. But I don't blame the Israelis. I blame the retards who fired 800+ rockets into Israel and the gutless and/or complicit Palestinian government which allowed it.

If you want my view on the conflict, here it is: http://blogs.the-ame...gaza-the-world/

And while I don't doubt children have been killed in Israeli airstrikes, beware Hamas photographs: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/11/18/Bloggers-Catch-More-Dead-Child-Fakery-by-Hamas

And http://www.breitbart...out-Gaza-Victim

Bomber Harris never hid from the fact he believed area bombing of the German cities was the right strategy. It was war. Right and wrong goes out of the window. Your mistake.

+1

Negotiations will have to take place at some point. Sooner or later the Arab states will be in a more militarily advantagagous position, then it may be too for Israel.

I believe this is incorrect. The Arab states are funded by petrol dollars. This short term wealth will dry up and result in the Saudis, Iranians, etc. being even weaker, long term. Not only is "green" energy becoming more prevalent, but the massive oil and gas reserves being found in the USA and Canada (and even off the coast of Israel), don't bode well for the Arab states' long term economic power.

[broadsword]

Consider the recent conflicts with Iraq... If Bush Senior had listened to Thatcher and not pussyfooted about afraid of irrelevent opinion then he'd have carried on up the road to Basra and Baghdad binned off Hussein and the second gulf war would have been totally avoided. How many lives would that have saved?

Quite a lot, but conversely, how many arms sales contracts would've been lost? Can't have that, can we?

Reverting back to the original post, all of this boils down to one simple principle, keep the populace in fear and they'll believe any old crap. Perhaps if we stopped supporting Israel sending Palestine back 2000 years then the muslim extremist world wouldn't have anything to rail against. When the CIA were training the Mudjahdeen, no-one was worried about muslims then. What I'm saying is a little unfocussed, but my point is that the "War on Terror" is merely a cover for the "War for Money and Resources".

[Jeru tha Damaja]

jeru....WTF HAS GERMAN BOMBINGS GOT TO DO WITH THE RELASE OF THE SCUMMY keaner

Not a lot, but we kind of got onto the ethics of warfare after someone else changed the discussion to Gaza. Hope that clears it up.

It is horrible that a small, innocent child was killed. But I don't blame the Israelis. I blame the retards who fired 800+ rockets into Israel and the gutless and/or complicit Palestinian government which allowed it.

If you want my view on the conflict, here it is: http://blogs.the-ame...gaza-the-world/

And while I don't doubt children have been killed in Israeli airstrikes, beware Hamas photographs: http://www.breitbart...Fakery-by-Hamas

And http://www.breitbart...out-Gaza-Victim

Ok, so you blame the people whose land was taken from them, whose homes were destroyed and who are routinely denied access to water and medical supplies?

If you have a particular principle that applies in every situation then I've got no argument to make because we'll just be going in circles. But I suspect that the endorsement of military operations would be absent if, for example, Egypt were to destroy downtown Tel-Aviv in response to Israel's bombing of Gaza. The US has killed people in Nicaragua this year, but if Nicaraguan forces arrived in LA and started shooting people I'd guess Washington would not be ok with that. You see what I'm saying?

Anyway, at least Hamas doesn't have the gall to put "Fair & Balanced" on its propaganda.

[Steve Moss]

Ok, so you blame the people whose land was taken from them, . . .

Exactly when and what event lead to the Palestinians land being taken from them? I ask only to ensure that we are discussing the same event.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Put it this way, Israel didn't exist between the time of the Roman Empire and 1948, so apart from land that was purchased by Jews from the Ottomans, all of Israel is stolen land in my view. The war of 1948 came about as a result of Jewish terrorism, the "war" of 1967 was over before Israel absorbed the Sinai peninsula, Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Even though the military victory had already been won, Israel pursued the annexation of these regions with such vigour that they bombed the USS Liberty to buy themselves more time to seize territory before the war was officially deemed to be over.

Since then settlements and restrictive roads and fences have been built all over land that didn't even belong to Israel as it was recognised by the international community. Only a tiny fraction of the displaced Palestinians were ever allowed to return, no male between the age of 16 and 60 was ever allowed back, and thousands still live in refugee camps throughout Gaza, Jordan and Syria.

In 1970 (ish) Israel ended the right of Palestinians to register their ownership of land in the occupied territories and designated unclaimed land as "state lands", which were then deemed fair game for the construction of settlements in clear violation of international law.

Sinai, being of little value to anyone, was eventually handed back to Egypt. Golan Heights were handed back, but are now occupied again. The discrepancies between the official situation and the facts on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank are too numerous to go into at this hour.

Population transfers (illegal under the Geneva Conventions that Israel ratified in 1951) have been common, seeing Palestinians moved out of areas deemed to be desirable by settlers and also the active transfer (i.e. government sponsored) of Israelis into the occupied territories. Palestinians who were unable to register their land with the Israeli authorities have seen their homes demolished to make way for fences, roads and settlements, even though their buildings may have stood there for decades prior to the arrival of European Jews.

Even today the building of settlements continues and Israel has built roads outside its own borders that local Palestinians are not allowed to travel on and has erected fences outside its borders with Gaza.

The flimsy justification for these land seizures is that "God promised them the land", but that explanation seems to ignore the fact that God also apparently saw fit to allow the Romans to kick the Jews out of Jerusalem long before the establishment of the modern Jewish state. So, "stolen land" seems just about the best term one could use for the settlements.

When time allows I can also detail the Israeli destruction and annexation of villages, and the forced migration of Palestinians into Jordan after the 1967 war if you like. I refer back to 1967 because, whatever my feelings about the events that went before, the starting point for negotiations is always the 1967 borders, so only that which came after is likely to be considered illegal by international standards.

[dave birch]

How many wrongs does it take to make a right.

Isn't it about time that people learned to live together?

We've got one world and one shot at living in it, and people want to blast the crap out of each other.

[PAFELL]

Israel has become a cause, but originally it was a convenient move that Britain imagined might give them a little security around the Suez Canal. It became a cause largely because people felt guilty about the Holocaust, but having committed one injustice through that guilt we can't now allow our sympathy to colour our perspective as Israel now flirts with a new genocide (and if you look at the numbers it is that serious).

Israel builds settlements on land that doesn't belong to them, taking up resources that could sustain a reasonable standard of living for the surrounding areas and squandering them. There's a settlement in the West Bank that has a swimming pool, meanwhile the local Palestinians survive on two deliveries of water per week. There are roads that Palestinians cannot travel on and they can vote in elections (the elections of a state that doesn't officially exist), but the results of free and fair elections are subsequently ignored because they failed to vote for the US/Israel-approved candidate. Around Gaza a wall has been built that lies outside Israeli territory and is patrolled by military forces, and even medical supplies and food are forcefully denied entry. The West Bank is still effectively policed by the Israeli military. Houses have been destroyed with nothing built to replace them and no provision given to the people who have lost their homes.

An import-export ban has long been imposed on Gaza, crippling what economic activity might flourish there, yet when South Africa chose to label certain products as originating in "Occupied Territories" they started crying about it. I wonder why they object to consumers being informed of a simple fact? Could it be that they know that a lot of people have a moral objection to their activities?

In the 22 day incursion into Gaza in 2008-9 there were 1,417 Palestinians killed. That's more than the total number of Israelis killed by Palestinians this century, and those figures are taken from Israeli sources. In 2009 there were 314 Palestinian children killed by military strikes compared with 129 Israeli children since 2000.

Israel and it's big brother consistently block any attempt to recognise Palestine as a state or protect the rights of Palestinians at the UN, and it was Ehud Barak that walked away from talks over a two-state solution at the end of Clinton's presidency. Israel has adopted a tactic of nominally engaging in peace talks while simultaneously making a contiguous Palestinian state impossible and ensuring that conditions become so bad in Palestine that its inhabitants are condemned to poverty or forced to flee. It's almost funny that the tactics of Israel should look so much like they were lifted straight from Hitler's playbook.

Israel talks about terrorism without so much as a nod to how their own state came to be. If a Palestinian were to look through a history book then the lesson they would learn is that if you want to be granted statehood then terrorism works. Yes, a number of attacks originate in Lebanon and Syria, but it is more than possible that there's a connection between those attacks and the number of displaced Palestinians living in those countries.

Forgive me if I don't cry too much about Israel, but their behaviour is beyond the pale for a civilised country. We haven't even addressed their illegal development of a "nuclear deterrent" or their efforts to assist the South African Apartheid regime in doing likewise. If ever there was a "rogue state" then Israel seems to fit the bill nicely, except that you're only "rogue" if you don't agree with American interests, and as long as you let Washington dictate certain policies then you can pretty much do what you want without being called out for it.

And that brings us to the absolute daddy of hypocrisy: The USA. Terrorism such a big concern now? Funny how they didn't feel that way when they were turning a blind eye to the funding of the IRA. Think of Ismail Haniyah as a Middle Eastern Gerry Adams and Hassan Nasrallah as a Muslim Michael McKevitt. Where was the furore about sponsoring terrorism when NORAID was in full swing?

That's only scratching the surface, but I'll finish with the most tragic part of it all. The innocent victims, the civilians who live through this conflict every day, on both sides, mostly aren't interested in revenge. Popular opinion in Israel and Palestine is that there should be a mutual recognition of rights and borders (even to the point that most Israelis would concede territory outside the 1967 borders), and they agree that there should be a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. But when has popular opinion ever counted for anything?

Some very good points. It is just as wrong to suppress a country and its people, as it is to fire rockets.

[PAFELL]

Ok then, but once you say something is ok as long as your cause is justified then you create a problem that you can never put back in the box. Palestinians are essentially fighting against an occupying force, which makes their cause hard to argue against, so logic dictates that they should escape criticism for using similar methods.

Even David Ben Gurion acknowledged the problem that, for anyone who doesn't accept the Biblical narrative, the Jews had stolen Palestinian land and that they would fight to take it back. And anyone who does accept the claim that Israel was promised to the Jews by God could perhaps fill in the gap and explain why He allowed them to be expelled from Jerusalem by the Christians (not Muslims).

Even the bible narrative teaches that israel's stay on the land was conditional. If they obeyed God they could stay, if not they would be removed. The biblical teaching is that they were removed due to their disobedience to God.

[dave birch]

Some of you guys are seriously missing the point.....

Bible, Q"ruan....

We are talking lives here, not words in a book.

[PAFELL]

Some of you guys are seriously missing the point.....

Bible, Q"ruan....

We are talking lives here, not words in a book.

Correct we are talking lives. But it is 'words in a book' as you put it that has dictated Isreals stealing land they are on now. Israel believes it is their land by a 'God given right'. Because of words in a book. Other nations are also believing these same words in a book and therefore defend Israel. Even though, according to that same book, Israel and other nations are acting contary to those words in the book. (If I remember my RE correctly)

But you are right. We are talking lives here. Stubbon people on both sides, sticking to their opinions at all costs, is what is killing people.

[JAL]

Exactly. If Israel gets it wrong just once it will cease to exist. It only exists now because of it's military strength. The Arab nations would destroy it if they could without a second thought.

Dont forget though that our banks are controlled mainly by the Jews so our support for Israel must be unconditional.

[Mike E]

Funny isn't it? Religionists insist they are right and yet scientists are willing to question all facts until they are 100% proven. Religion sucks at the best of times and it does these days is kill people (using the technological advances of science, funnily enough).

[broadsword]

Religion is just a convenient way of distinguishing between two warring sides. You might as well make it racial, jews versus arabs.

I don't think religion is the driving force behind this conflict. In fact, I would actually say you'd characterise it better to say it was racially motivated.