Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What on earth is your point?
    Mine is that criticism of Israel, a country, is not anti-Semitic.
    My point is that you cannot discuss anti-Semitism because you don't know what it is.
    My point also is that you are a liar.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    It's not about diplomacy. Have you ever heard about Palestinian state for Palestinian people?
    Not entirely sure what you mean in that particular phrasing?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Not entirely sure what you mean in that particular phrasing?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Sorry.
    I mean that everybody, including Israeli political leaders, are speaking about Palestinian state for Palestinian people. But Muslims are refuse to speak about Jewish state for Jewish people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I'll find the links Queen but I'm sure they were targeted as they were running from or to a know Launch site for rockets

    Now I think we can all agree you don't let children play around military sites unless you want them to be killed (and did you know that allowing children to play around military targets during he time of a conflict is considered a war crime the same as if a person knowing moves towards a gun battle that person loses their protected status according to international law (something we all know the pallys encourage during there fights with Israel)
    Post the link when you can,Hun
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    My point is that you cannot discuss anti-Semitism because you don't know what it is.
    My point also is that you are a liar.
    For a start I'm jewish. I know perfectly well what it is. You want to shamelessly shut down any criticism of Israel by labelling it as anti semitic. What do you think anti Semitism is?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Sorry.
    I mean that everybody, including Israeli political leaders, are speaking about Palestinian state for Palestinian people. But Muslims are refuse to speak about Jewish state for Jewish people.
    'speaking about' and doing something are two different things. Token words mean nothing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I'll find the links Queen but I'm sure they were targeted as they were running from or to a know Launch site for rockets
    Let me help you.
    https://www.facebook.com/Lt.Col.Pete...8952196:0?_rdr
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Hamas are just as bad
    Call yourself a Corbynite! :laugh:



    Spoiler:
    Show
    Flag is Hezbollah, but you catch my drift..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Call yourself a Corbynite! :laugh:



    Spoiler:
    Show
    Flag is Hezbollah, but you catch my drift..
    He'll soon come to his senses and mend his ways :rolleyes:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Sorry.
    I mean that everybody, including Israeli political leaders, are speaking about Palestinian state for Palestinian people. But Muslims are refuse to speak about Jewish state for Jewish people.
    I'm not so sure, I tend to just hear people talk simply about a Palestinian state. This is a complicated issue, but to try and summarise right now, the proposal for a Palestinian state is to provide then with their currently-denied political rights, rather than because they need a particulae ethnic state simply because they are an ethnic group.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    He'll soon come to his senses and mend his ways :rolleyes:
    What are you basing this statement on? The evidence I've seen to date rather suggests the contrary. His right hand man, John McDonnell, may be economically illiterate but at least he was principled enough to apologise for his chumming up to the IRA
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Many thanks for this
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'm not so sure, I tend to just hear people talk simply about a Palestinian state. This is a complicated issue, but to try and summarise right now, the proposal for a Palestinian state is to provide then with their currently-denied political rights, rather than because they need a particulae ethnic state simply because they are an ethnic group.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    People talk..
    Maybe just accidentally somebody talked you about political formula "two states for two peoples"?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    People talk..
    Maybe just accidentally somebody talked you about political formula "two states for two peoples"?
    I have, but I don't particularly agree with it. Not that I necessarily oppose a two state solution, I accept it on the basis of two distinct political territories, and a lack of clear political will to unite them right now. I don't think there has to be two states simply on the principle of there being "two peoples".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    He'll soon come to his senses and mend his ways :rolleyes:
    He hasn't since the early 80s; I doubt he'll change now.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    educate me

    do you not think the atomic bombings of japan stops the japanese from continuing to massacre the far east?
    No I do not and would never condone the use of such a weapon that caused so much suffering and unnecessary loss of human life. Japan was already a defeated country by then.

    If you want to know more about the settlements that Israel keeps expanding on in the West Bank and East Jerusalem then there are several articles about Palestinian homes being bulldozed and Israeli settlements being built on the land. It's one of the primary reasons why there has been friction between the US and Israeli government in the recent years. Check out UN resolution 446.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    No I do not and would never condone the use of such a weapon that caused so much suffering and unnecessary loss of human life. Japan was already a defeated country by then.
    I'd have rathered japanese citizens died than allied soldiers seeing as the japanese are the ones responsible for the war in the far east, so they are more deserving of death than soldiers of a defending nation. I don't wish death on any innocent people, but if I had to choose between sacrificing more soldiers or foreign citizens of an aggressing nation, the choice of obvious. the japanese were evidently planning a last stand, because they wouldn't accept unconditional surrender (which was demanded), so that would have costed US soldiers' lives. so to bomb hiroshima and nagasaki would have prevented an innocent country's men from dying. it makes total sense to have bombed those nations. the japanese could have saved their citizens but they didn't. so it's entirely their fault that their people died.

    If you want to know more about the settlements that Israel keeps expanding on in the West Bank and East Jerusalem then there are several articles about Palestinian homes being bulldozed and Israeli settlements being built on the land. It's one of the primary reasons why there has been friction between the US and Israeli government in the recent years. Check out UN resolution 446.
    ...so surely you, knowing about this, would be able to give me a sentence or two about that?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    I'd have rathered japanese citizens died than allied soldiers seeing as the japanese are the ones responsible for the war in the far east, so they are more deserving of death than soldiers of a defending nation. I don't wish death on any innocent people, but if I had to choose between sacrificing more soldiers or foreign citizens of an aggressing nation, the choice of obvious. the japanese were evidently planning a last stand, because they wouldn't accept unconditional surrender (which was demanded), so that would have costed US soldiers' lives. so to bomb hiroshima and nagasaki would have prevented an innocent country's men from dying. it makes total sense to have bombed those nations. the japanese could have saved their citizens but they didn't. so it's entirely their fault that their people died.
    This is the exact excuse that terrorists cite for suicide bombings. This was a country that had been greatly weakened and had limited military capabilities, an atom bomb was completely unnecessary and would only be condoned by those who think that all human life is not equally sacred. And it makes perfect sense to blame those who dropped the bomb for the bombing than those who were bombed. Japanese civilians did not choose to be involved in the war.

    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    so surely you, knowing about this, would be able to give me a sentence or two about that?
    I already did, but here are a few articles from an exhaustively long list:
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vaot-condemned
    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/e...lence-1.402619
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15556801

    The Security Council calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories
    Resolution 446: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/...2560E50077C2DC
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    This is the exact excuse that terrorists cite for suicide bombings. This was a country that had been greatly weakened and had limited military capabilities, an atom bomb was completely unnecessary and would only be condoned by those who think that all human life is not equally sacred. And it makes perfect sense to blame those who dropped the bomb for the bombing than those who were bombed. Japanese civilians did not choose to be involved in the war.
    you seem to be agreeing with the napoleonic position of "soldiers are meant to die" - soldiers are citizens/humans too. soldiers shouldn't be viewed as mere tools. yes, they are involved in wars, but they were conscripted in WWII. so it wasn't a matter of choice, in the same sense as citizens in japan got involved. there was no difference at all. but even if we're talking about modern wars, soldiers aren't signing up to die - they're signing up to risk their lives though. but that is not to say they deserve death more than enemy non-combatants - if an enemy nation invades you and the only way to stop more soldiers dying than otherwise is killing non-combatants to make a surrender faster, then killing non-combatants is a necessity. if anybody is going to die, why would you send your own men to death when you could kill other nations' peoples (when they are not represented by an innocent government?). you need to blame the right actor - the invading state. in WWII, japanese forces were slaughtering millions of non-combatants, so they had to be stopped, and the only way to do that, was through their innocent citizens. it was defensive. a nation cannot just expect its people to die endlessly just because the other nations' non-combatants equally didn't deserve death to the degree that they shouldn't die - their own nation will be influenced by these deaths more than foreign deaths.

    war is hell. nobody is safe. if you have to kill one innocent person to save another innocent person who happens to be a citizen of your nation, then you ought to do what is in the interest of your own nation.

    "you did"? where?
    not even one sentence? I don't have time to necessarily go through all those.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    you seem to be agreeing with the napoleonic position of "soldiers are meant to die" - soldiers are citizens/humans too. soldiers shouldn't be viewed as mere tools. yes, they are involved in wars, but they were conscripted in WWII. so it wasn't a matter of choice, in the same sense as citizens in japan got involved. there was no difference at all. but even if we're talking about modern wars, soldiers aren't signing up to die - they're signing up to risk their lives though. but that is not to say they deserve death more than enemy non-combatants - if an enemy nation invades you and the only way to stop more soldiers dying than otherwise is killing non-combatants to make a surrender faster, then killing non-combatants is a necessity. if anybody is going to die, why would you send your own men to death when you could kill other nations' peoples (when they are not represented by an innocent government?). you need to blame the right actor - the invading state. in WWII, japanese forces were slaughtering millions of non-combatants, so they had to be stopped, and the only way to do that, was through their innocent citizens. it was defensive. a nation cannot just expect its people to die endlessly just because the other nations' non-combatants equally didn't deserve death to the degree that they shouldn't die - their own nation will be influenced by these deaths more than foreign deaths.
    So you're really justifying the murder of 200,000 civilians with two bombs? If it was the other way round the use of those bombs would be considered a war crime. I already stated that Japan was weak from having been bombed heavily prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki so had very limited military capabilities. Because of this the use of such a destructive weapon was highly unnecessary and even if the US did have to use it, why choose a civilian concentrated city as opposed to a military base?

    (Original post by AlmightyJesus)
    "you did"? where?
    not even one sentence? I don't have time to necessarily go through all those.
    To sum it up Israel has been bulldozing Palestinian homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, forcing the inhabitants to become refugees so the displacement continues to this day. Israel has also been building Jews-only settlements on these lands despite worldwide condemnation and the fact that this is contrary to the Fourth Geneva Convention. I would consider that to be aggressive action.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.