Thread: England is anti-semetic

Originally Posted by Like a Fox

Ha. Caelum, truly ridiculous.

It is Caelum, after all.

No man that loved dogs can have been all bad.

I thought that was W.C Fields, "Anyone who hates small children and dogs can't be all bad.

Blood, The number killed by Hamas rockets was in single figures, two thirds of those killed by the Israelis in their invasion were women and children.

So the Hamas rockets are somehow designed not to kill women and children?

Originally Posted by Baron

So the Hamas rockets are somehow designed not to kill women and children?

Not at all, they are pretty random, combat troops however are not, two thirds women and children might suggest that not all the men killed were combatants either. The standards whereby this falls into the category of a defensive action are reminiscent of Roman ones.

Perhaps a bit late on the mark to comment on the original qoute but this kind of statment has the ring of the "race card" about it. The politics of the region have gone so far beyond religion it seems ludicrous to apply such a label, whether or not there is a large amount of anti-semitism in the uk seems independant of events in isreal. This kind of issue always puts me in mind of a joke i one heard about northern ireland (some may find it a little offensive but i assure you it's not intended to stereotype the irish). An atheist is walking through Belfast and a man comes up to him with a hard look in his eye and a knife in his hand and says "are you a catholic or a protestant" and he replies "I'm an atheist". So the man considers this for a moment then asks again "right, but are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist!" the point being that religous loyalty is only the most tenuous of masks for the political, territorial or financial heart of most world issues.

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

Not at all, they are pretty random, combat troops however are not, two thirds women and children might suggest that not all the men killed were combatants either. The standards whereby this falls into the category of a defensive action are reminiscent of Roman ones.

Hamas uses it's own people as human shields. They purposely hide rocket launchers in populated areas, and then they cry foul when civilians are killed in the process of the Israelis trying to stop the launches. And people swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Hamas has shown it's willing to sacrifice the Palestinian people to further their cause. And as long as they are willing to do that, any Israeli action will be seen as overblown and heavy handed and will no doubt result in numerous civilian casualties. And that's just what Hamas wants.

No Israeli concession, pull-back or cease fire will stop the rocket launches, not as long as the destruction of Israel remains Hamas' stated goal. And if Hamas were to ever modify that goal, a newer more radical organization would push them out.

And so it goes.

Originally Posted by JosephB

Hamas uses it's own people as human shields.

I see where you're coming from. Israel's got it dead right; wipe out all the civilains and Hamas has nowhere to hide.

Using the same logic the Afghan war could be ended within weeks if we carpet-bombed villages, and the Northern Ireland conflicy could have been ended overnight if only we'd thought to napalm Belfast.

Originally Posted by JosephB

Hamas has shown it's willing to sacrifice the Palestinian people to further their cause.

Funny how little difference there would appear to be between Hamas and the Israeli government.

Originally Posted by Mike C

Funny how little difference there would appear to be between Hamas and the Israeli government.

That's the first really deplorable thing that's been said in this discussion. It's not only deplorable, it's totally removed from the truth. The Israeli Government actually has members who are not all fanatical, nationalistic, militant zealots like those in Hamas. Hamas is literally the scum of the earth.

Assuming for one moment that's true, does that mean Palestinian civilians deserve everything they get?

I think you missed my point entirely.

Originally Posted by Mike C

I see where you're coming from. Israel's got it dead right; wipe out all the civilains and Hamas has nowhere to hide.

Using the same logic the Afghan war could be ended within weeks if we carpet-bombed villages, and the Northern Ireland conflicy could have been ended overnight if only we'd thought to napalm Belfast.

No, apparently you don't see where I'm coming from.

That makes for an amusing response, but it doesn't have much to do with what's going on. Israel isn't going to "wipe out all the civilians." And no one's going to use napalm or carpet-bomb.

And the IRA wasn't firing rockets at London from heavily populated areas of Ireland, were they? If they had, it's not a big leap to assume you would have taken some action that might have resulted in civilian casualties. Don't compare apple and oranges.

Maybe when you check back in you can talk about something that is reasonably close to what's happening, instead of just trying to be glib.

I was making a valid comparison. The IRA did, in fact, launch at least one rocket attack from a residential area. And regularly used people's homes for sniping at soldiers (usually against the residents will). The British Army in Ireland had strict rules of engagement to protect civilians. The difference is that Israel is fairly indiscriminate in its targeting. If our troops behaved that way in Afghanistan, we would be complaining.

Sure Israel isn't going to wipe out all the civilians. But the numbers of civilians killed in Palestine compared to the number of Hamas during the last incursion was shameful.

Try to remember that most of the people ending up dead here aren't Hamas or Israeli soldiers or politicians. They're pawns, innocents, whether they're Israeli kids on buses or Palestinian kids getting shot. They - on either side - don't get any say in what's going on. They just end up dead.

This conflict is going to run and run until people finally realise, as the IRA and the British Government did, that you don't end wars by killing more people, but by stopping, and talking. Until somebody's brave enough to do that, the wrong people are going to be the ones getting buried, day in, day out.

Originally Posted by Mike C

I was making a valid comparison. The IRA did, in fact, launch at least one rocket attack from a residential area. And regularly used people's homes for sniping at soldiers (usually against the residents will). The British Army in Ireland had strict rules of engagement to protect civilians. The difference is that Israel is fairly indiscriminate in its targeting. If our troops behaved that way in Afghanistan, we would be complaining.

Sure Israel isn't going to wipe out all the civilians. But the numbers of civilians killed in Palestine compared to the number of Hamas during the last incursion was shameful.

Try to remember that most of the people ending up dead here aren't Hamas or Israeli soldiers or politicians. They're pawns, innocents, whether they're Israeli kids on buses or Palestinian kids getting shot. They - on either side - don't get any say in what's going on. They just end up dead.

This conflict is going to run and run until people finally realise, as the IRA and the British Government did, that you don't end wars by killing more people, but by stopping, and talking. Until somebody's brave enough to do that, the wrong people are going to be the ones getting buried, day in, day out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Really?


And then there's those civilians in Iraq under the protection of British soldiers:

You don't have to tell me about Bloody Sunday. Rules of engagement were largely shaped by that day. And please note (as Israel should in Palestine) IRA violence escalated from that point.

Anyway, Baron, are you saying that Bloody Sunday makes the Israeli treatment of Palestinian civilians ok?