Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't ever recall hearing about the French Resistance sickly, deliberately targetting school children in order to kill as many of them as they could, as part of some supposed military objective.
    Me neither. Your point?

    Defensive? Who declared war on Israel twice?
    Jews were pouring into the land and were trying to take sovereignty. Because of the racial/religious links between Jordan and Egypt, they sided with Palestine and tried to defeat the invaders.

    Irrespective of the inaccuracy, it doesnt really address the question.
    On the contrary. If there were no illegal settlements, there would be no one firing rockets into them.

    When the resistance doesnt involve targeting and blowing innocent men, women and children up. Its a rather basic moral distinction.
    Fair enough, so long as you don;t class a man with a gun firing at an Israeli soldier during an incursion as a terrorist.

    I know your motives make it difficult, but could you make an effort to refer to them as Israelis please.
    My motives? Is that a subtle smear of anti-semitism? Say what you mean. I said Jews, because the word Jews and the word Israelis are not synonyms. You may well call dead Israeli arabs killed by Israeli police during a demonstration 'collateral damage.'

    I doubt I would refer to many Israeli casualties with the term collateral damage, as more often than not they are deliberately targeted. Another salient distinction that you appear to be unable to make.
    So if one Israeli soldier dies (a guard let's say) and 9 kids. Are they collateral damage? Or are they slaughtered innocents. Time for real distinctions to to with life and death.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    'Good manners' and anti-white bias have created a convention that we see this discussion as between Israelis and Palestinians. Should this be so when it's whites who fund the antagonistic racism of each side (each happy to complain about the racism of gentile/infidel whites in Europe and America)?

    Maybe America should stop bakrolling Israeli racism, and multicultural Europe should refuse to make viable a Palestinian (and therefore racist) state.

    Racism is wrong right?

    Backward *******s.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You're neglecting the fact that Israelis will target indiscriminately to 'take out' a suspected terrorist/freedom fighter.
    How can you take out a suspect, and target indiscriminately?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    If. by targetting a certain person, the foreseen result is that other, innocent people are killed, then, imo that is indiscriminate targetting.
    Utter rubbish. A completely nonsensical conclusion that highlights just how desperate these arguments, all failing to recognise terrorism, are becoming.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Jews were pouring into the land and were trying to take sovereignty. Because of the racial/religious links between Jordan and Egypt, they sided with Palestine and tried to defeat the invaders.
    This is utter nonsense. Jewish settlers were the majority on the land to which the state of Israel was declared. The State of Israel offered citizenship to the Arab minority who worked and lived on that land. The Arab nations opposed the creation of Israel and declared war on it, threatening those Arabs. Israel defended itself and then defended itself again when war was again declared by the same nations. Neither acts of war were as a result of any Israeli invasion that you wish to fabricate. Both acts of war were direct hostility and opposition to the state of Israel.

    On the contrary. If there were no illegal settlements, there would be no one firing rockets into them.
    Go and read the Hamas charter.

    Fair enough, so long as you don;t class a man with a gun firing at an Israeli soldier during an incursion as a terrorist.
    Fine.

    My motives? Is that a subtle smear of anti-semitism? Say what you mean. I said Jews, because the word Jews and the word Israelis are not synonyms.
    They certainly are not synonymous, so Id appreciate it if you referred to them as Israelis and not discriminate on the basis of whether they are Jewish or not.

    You may well call dead Israeli arabs killed by Israeli police during a demonstration 'collateral damage.'
    I dont, and I equally reject this completely ridiculous and irrelevant suggestion.


    So if one Israeli soldier dies (a guard let's say) and 9 kids. Are they collateral damage? Or are they slaughtered innocents. Time for real distinctions to to with life and death.
    As I said, you are unable to make any kind of moral distinction.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    No. That would be like the Syrian occupation of Lebanon in a way. The Jordanian and Egyptian presence was defensive and fraternal.
    So if Israel did not occupy Palestine, you would not be calling for the creation of a Palestinian state?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Me neither. Your point?
    Do you still not see the difference between Hamas Terrorists and the French Resistance?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    So if Israel did not occupy Palestine, you would not be calling for the creation of a Palestinian state?
    Yes I would. The occupation by Arab states was temporary. Syria should have left Lebanon a while ago as there was no reason to stay there. And if the Jews hadn't flocked there in the first place (for many it wasn't their fault) then Palestine wouldn;t have been occupied by Jordan and Egypt anyway.

    settlers were the majority on the land to which the state of Israel was declared.
    So in a few years time asians can claim British cities as their own country?

    Both acts of war were direct hostility and opposition to the state of Israel.
    Because they swamped the land and stopped Palestine emerging as an independent state.

    Go and read the Hamas charter.
    I believe the Likud charter calls for an Israel to the river Jordan. Hamas would have less bombers, less militants and less votes. You're always going to have terrorism, but withdrawing settlements would be a big blow to them.

    They certainly are not synonymous, so Id appreciate it if you referred to them as Israelis and not discriminate on the basis of whether they are Jewish or not.
    My entire point was that yu seem to see dead Arabs as collateral damage, ut would you use that term to describe dead Jews.

    As I said, you are unable to make any kind of moral distinction.
    Both attacks are targeted. One at a militant, one at a soldier. In both, many civilians die. What's the difference?

    Of course I see the difference. I did not see you point in saying what you said.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    Do you still not see the difference between Hamas Terrorists and the French Resistance?
    The question is do Hamas see themselves as different (did the sturn gang)?

    Either it's a Jewish/Arab conflict 'to make peaceable' - since they have these identifications and affiliations or it's our peace to make since we fund said conflict. What's your view JonD?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Utter rubbish.
    In your 'oh so humble' opinion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by JonD)
    Do you still not see the difference between Hamas Terrorists and the French Resistance?
    Yes - one is fighting against the interests of imperialistic nations. the other fought for the interests of the imperialistic nations. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    In your 'oh so humble' opinion.
    Which immediately followed and you have not addressed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    So in a few years time asians can claim British cities as their own country?
    Yet another completely flawed analogy.

    Because they swamped the land and stopped Palestine emerging as an independent state.
    Please show me evidence of this because you clearly have no idea what youre talking about. Jewish settlers owned and worked the land peacefully alongside their Arab neighbours. The Palestinians were offered a state alongside Israel, but rejected it.

    Hamas would have less bombers, less militants and less votes. You're always going to have terrorism, but withdrawing settlements would be a big blow to them.
    They want to wipe Israel out, it would be a huge gain for them.

    My entire point was that yu seem to see dead Arabs as collateral damage, ut would you use that term to describe dead Jews.
    Please elaborate on this, because your persistant suggestions of racism are getting tedious.

    Both attacks are targeted. One at a militant, one at a soldier. In both, many civilians die. What's the difference?
    Suicide bombers targetting cafés and nightclubs.

    Of course I see the difference.
    You have demonstrated this to be the case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The Jews flocked where? There were no Jews in the West Bank and Gaza. Who exactly were the Arabs protecting these Palestinians from? And why didn't they grant the Palestinians statehood?
    Northumbrian is happy to fabricate history in order to blame Jews for the terrorism Israel now suffers.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Which immediately followed and you have not addressed.
    Knowing and loving you as we all do, one can anticipate that no matter how one addresses your comments, one's response will be immediately dismissed as 'utter rubbish' if it does not accord with your own views.

    So you see, it is an 'utter, complete, total, 100% waste of time' - and I'm hungry for my breakfast!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The Jews flocked where? There were no Jews in the West Bank and Gaza. Who exactly were the Arabs protecting these Palestinians from? And why didn't they grant the Palestinians statehood?
    I wasn't referring to the West Bank and Gaza, I was referring to Palestine as it was before the partition. They didn't grant statehood because they would have been left with the partition deal which they rejected.

    Yet another completely flawed analogy.
    You consistently fail to explain your statements.

    Please show me evidence of this because you clearly have no idea what youre talking about. Jewish settlers owned and worked the land peacefully alongside their Arab neighbours. The Palestinians were offered a state alongside Israel, but rejected it
    I've got no problem with Jews coming in and owning land etc. But what makes them think they had the right to take sovereignty?

    They want to wipe Israel out, it would be a huge gain for them.
    It wouldn't be a gain, because they would lose support amongst the people. Hamas would end up being a fringe group with much reduced support, especially if a Palestinian state was given money to invest in public services etc.

    Please elaborate on this, because your persistant suggestions of racism are getting tedious.
    You described dead innocent Palestinians killed when Israel assassinates militans as 'collateral damage.' Would you describe Jewish settlers killed when their settlement defenses (manned by soldiers) were bombed?

    Suicide bombers targetting cafés and nightclubs.
    But also checpoints and settlement forts.

    Northumbrian is happy to fabricate history in order to blame Jews for the terrorism Israel now suffers.
    The Jews went in, backed by Jewish New York bankers and bought land. Fair enough. But then, they tried to become the ruling power in the country, wheras all the surrounding Arab mandates had emeged as independent states. There was no justification for an independent Jewish state on the scale that was proposed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Knowing and loving you as we all do, one can anticipate that no matter how one addresses your comments, one's response will be immediately dismissed as 'utter rubbish' if it does not accord with your own views.

    So you see, it is an 'utter, complete, total, 100% waste of time' - and I'm hungry for my breakfast!
    You made a statement of logic.

    "If. by targetting a certain person, the foreseen result is that other, innocent people are killed, then that is indiscriminate targetting."

    Indiscriminate adj. : Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective, random

    So in selecting a target and taking an action against that target, you claim the assassination of that target is not based on any distinction of a target and is entirely random.

    The logic is flawed and thus so is your opinion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    So in selecting a target and taking an action against that target, you claim the assassination of that target is not based on any distinction of a target and is entirely random.
    A bomb doesn't discriminate between a militant/terrorist and next doors 6th month old baby.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I wasn't referring to the West Bank and Gaza, I was referring to Palestine as it was before the partition. They didn't grant statehood because they would have been left with the partition deal which they rejected.
    Who rejected?

    You consistently fail to explain your statements.
    Your analogy was flawed, not least because Britain exists as a state, a comparison between Asians and Jews equally so, Asians have no ethnic or historical ties to the land and they are not threatened with ethnic cleansing by the rest of the British or European population.

    I've got no problem with Jews coming in and owning land etc. But what makes them think they had the right to take sovereignty?
    They owned the land, they lived happily with their Arab neighbours on that land, the land was under the jurisdiction of the British and then the UN, who founded the state of Israel for those who had settled on that land. Whos sovereignity did they take unlawfully?

    It wouldn't be a gain, because they would lose support amongst the people. Hamas would end up being a fringe group with much reduced support, especially if a Palestinian state was given money to invest in public services etc.
    If you believe in Hamas, you believe that Israel should be destroyed. If Hamas is unlikely to change its opinions, what makes you think its supporters will?

    Bearing in mind the support Hamas receives, do they wish to see Israeli withdrawal from these settlements?

    You described dead innocent Palestinians killed when Israel assassinates militans as 'collateral damage.'
    If the IDF targets a suspect, and in killing that suspect, there are one or more innocent casualties, then by the nature of that operation, these are unfortunate yet undesired deaths.

    Would you describe Jewish settlers killed when their settlement defenses (manned by soldiers) were bombed?
    I refuse to answer any questions where you haphazardly replace 'Israeli' with 'Jew'.

    But also checpoints and settlement forts.
    And because they also bomb soldiers as well as innocent men, women and children they are not terrorists?

    The Jews went in, backed by Jewish New York bankers and bought land. Fair enough. But then, they tried to become the ruling power in the country, wheras all the surrounding Arab mandates had emeged as independent states. There was no justification for an independent Jewish state on the scale that was proposed.
    The ruling power in which country? Under whos jurisdiction?
    How was that the fault of the Jews?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    A bomb doesn't discriminate between a militant/terrorist and next doors 6th month old baby.
    A bomb drops itself does it?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,037

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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