1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Danuogma · 30-12-2008 11:53pm

Looks like the brave Israelis have rammed a relief boat in international waters that was carrying tons of medical/food supplies doctors, journalists, and human rights activists. According the Israelis they were "involved in terrorist activity".

More proof that goes to show how debased and devoid of humanity these lowlife, murderous scumbags really are (as if we needed any more proof).

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Cynthia_McKinneys_boat_rammed_by_Israeli_1230.html

The people who go to great lengths to defend the atrocities and terrorism committed by the state of Israel are every bit as debased and twisted as the psychopaths that order murder on an industrial scale.

Jesus1222 · 30-12-2008 11:56pm

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

I do believe anyone who supports the terrorist group hamas and there infastructure and associated ancillarys to be a supporter and apologist to terror

You're just repeating Israeli Foreign Ministry statements and not engaging in any arguments or debate. You're also name calling. So allow me, you are a supporter of terrorism and genocide.

Manic Moran · 30-12-2008 11:56pm

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

I see your information like palestinian civillian casualties is grossly overestimated
approx 125.000 permanant troops ( including Homefront command )
and 600.000 reservists

thats about 725.000
far cry from your 2 million

That doesn't sound right, are you counting only the active reserve?

Bearing in mind that Israel conscripts both men and women, and this makes everyone in the country between the ages of 18-40 or more liable to be called up for service, 2 million out of a population of, what, 8 million, doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Of course, this would require a total call-up and devastation of the Israeli economy. (Besides, they couldn't fit everyone in Gaza and still fight). It's a theoretical maximum in the case of a re-run of 1973.

NTM

Jesus1222 · 31-12-2008 12:09am

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

if I were a palestinian I wouldnt have voted for a group of terrorists who would use my back garden to launch a missile at Israel

No, but you'll vote for a government in a terrorist state which will launch, not rockets, but F16s and a full ground invasion against an almost completely defenceless territory.

I wouldnt have voted for a group of terrorists that blow up busses filled with people coming home from work

This is wrong. But so is murdering UN soldiers, Irish UN soldiers. So is shelling women and children playing on the beach. But you would vote for that.

I wouldnt vote for a group of terrorists who teach young kids its god will to hate Jews and heaven awaits those who blow them up.

I've actually sat down and spoken with IDF soldiers recently, they seem to have a remarkably similar attitude towards Palestinians. I'd imagine in an environment where 3rd world poverty, poor health and a complete lack of dignity and freedom aren't affecting you as a result of Israeli occupation, you'll have a lot more time for Israelis, eventually.

I wouldnt have voted for a terrorist group that uses kids to transport bombs thru checkpoints,

This is wrong, why not lend them some fighter planes? Or missile drones?

and uses my kids as human shields then goes to a nightclub to kill innocent kids, that fires rockets at playgrounds,

Israel has done similar and worse. Except the horrifying nature of these attacks isn't as apparent from 10,000ft and a media which says it was completely justified and necessary.

that has links with al qaeda,that spends all its international aid not on infastructure but on weapons,that continues to dig tunnells to kidnap Israelis.

They did tunnels mostly to get humanitarian supplies in, otherwise they'd starve to death.

maybe I would be happy voting in a party that didnt preach violence

What is the Israeli Government doing now if not preaching violence? They are saying violence and military action will solve all their problems. Hamas say precisely the same thing.

and would work on a roadmap to setting up a palestinian state free of violence and hatred where things could go back to being good like when Israelis went to the west bank to buy cheap furniture and palestinians there were happy with thier business.

Good Palestinian, good Palestinian. Sit boy. Sit.

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 12:15am

Manic Moran wrote: »

That doesn't sound right, are you counting only the active reserve?

Bearing in mind that Israel conscripts both men and women, and this makes everyone in the country between the ages of 18-40 or more liable to be called up for service, 2 million out of a population of, what, 8 million, doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Of course, this would require a total call-up and devastation of the Israeli economy. (Besides, they couldn't fit everyone in Gaza and still fight). It's a theoretical maximum in the case of a re-run of 1973.

NTM

dont forget about a third of women dont serve also there are a large number of exemptions/draft dodgers and other reasons not to serve

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 12:18am

Danuogma wrote: »

Looks like the brave Israelis have rammed a relief boat in international waters that was carrying tons of medical/food supplies doctors, journalists, and human rights activists. According the Israelis they were "involved in terrorist activity".

More proof that goes to show how debased and devoid of humanity these lowlife, murderous scumbags really are (as if we needed any more proof).

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Cynthia_McKinneys_boat_rammed_by_Israeli_1230.html

The people who go to great lengths to defend the atrocities and terrorism committed by the state of Israel are every bit as debased and twisted as the psychopaths that order murder on an industrial scale.

im sure you would have noticed taht when she was asked at the end did the ship try to manouver around the INS vessel did they collide and she avoided the question. Ill wait till I see the video from the INS vessel before I comment on the views of a anti Israel person

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 12:20am

Jesus1222 wrote: »

You're just repeating Israeli Foreign Ministry statements and not engaging in any arguments or debate. You're also name calling. So allow me, you are a supporter of terrorism and genocide.

I was responding to a post
and where is the name calling maybe you should re read what I typed and those are my views not statements from the Israeli foreign ministry

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 12:23am

dlofnep wrote: »

And what about the IDF? They are a terrorist group by every definition of terrorism. Are you an apologist of terror also?

they are a legitimate defence force that are internationally recognised
unlike Hamas that are the exact opposite

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 12:25am

Jesus1222 wrote: »

No, but you'll vote for a government in a terrorist state which will launch, not rockets, but F16s and a full ground invasion against an almost completely defenceless territory.

This is wrong. But so is murdering UN soldiers, Irish UN soldiers. So is shelling women and children playing on the beach. But you would vote for that.

I've actually sat down and spoken with IDF soldiers recently, they seem to have a remarkably similar attitude towards Palestinians. I'd imagine in an environment where 3rd world poverty, poor health and a complete lack of dignity and freedom aren't affecting you as a result of Israeli occupation, you'll have a lot more time for Israelis, eventually.

This is wrong, why not lend them some fighter planes? Or missile drones?

Israel has done similar and worse. Except the horrifying nature of these attacks isn't as apparent from 10,000ft and a media which says it was completely justified and necessary.

They did tunnels mostly to get humanitarian supplies in, otherwise they'd starve to death.

What is the Israeli Government doing now if not preaching violence? They are saying violence and military action will solve all their problems. Hamas say precisely the same thing.

Good Palestinian, good Palestinian. Sit boy. Sit.

I noticed you missed the part about links with Al Qaeda
or is that too much of a touchy subject?

Jesus1222 · 31-12-2008 12:25am

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

im sure you would have noticed taht when she was asked at the end did the ship try to manouver around the INS vessel did they collide and she avoided the question. Ill wait till I see the video from the INS vessel before I comment on the views of a anti Israel person

Why not allow humanitarian aid through?

Manic Moran · 31-12-2008 12:32am

Looks like the brave Israelis have rammed a relief boat in international waters that was carrying tons of medical/food supplies doctors, journalists, and human rights activists

Well, a quick look at the NTMs (No relation) indicates that this wasn't going to be permitted even if they were just carrying medical/food supplies, doctors, journalists and human rights activists.

Israeli NTM 6/2008 wrote:

Delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the
Gaza Strip is permitted through the land crossings between Israel
and the Gaza Strip, subject to prior coordination with the Israeli
Authorities.

3. In accordance with the agreements between israel and the
Palestinian Authority, entry of foreign vessels to the maritime
zone adjacent to the Gaza Strip is prohibited due to the security
situation and in light of these agreements, foreign vessels are
barred from such entry.

Helps to read the rules before you set sail.

NTM

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 12:32am

Jesus1222 wrote: »

Why not allow humanitarian aid through?

not a big news reader eh
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=79920&sectionid=351020202

Orion · 31-12-2008 12:33am

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

they are a legitimate defence force that are internationally recognised
unlike Hamas that are the exact opposite

Hamas were elected at one stage and the international community still refused to recognise them even though they had legitimacy.

And yes the IDF are a legitimate defence force. However, that does not excuse them from committing acts that, had they been committed by someone else, would be referred to as terrorism.

Jesus1222 · 31-12-2008 12:35am

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

I noticed you missed the part about links with Al Qaeda
or is that too much of a touchy subject?

Any Islamist with a Kalashnikov and an internet connection can call himself Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is more of a brand name now, not just an organisation. Hamas has publicly rejected actual Al Qaeda statements from Al Zawahiri. These accusations relatively recent and iirc, only came out after Hamas took control of Gaza. 5 years after 911. Link.

Jesus1222 · 31-12-2008 12:36am

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

not a big news reader eh
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=79920&sectionid=351020202

*sigh* I forgot to include the word "this". I thought it was implied. Why not let THIS humanitarian aid in?

ejmaztec · 31-12-2008 12:39am

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

they are a legitimate defence force that are internationally recognised
unlike Hamas that are the exact opposite

There are many legitimate defence forces with questionable morality.

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

I noticed you missed the part about links with Al Qaeda
or is that too much of a touchy subject?

Do you think that organisations like Al Qaeda would have existed had it not been for the actions of Israel during the last 60 years?

Jesus1222 · 31-12-2008 12:41am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, a quick look at the NTMs (No relation) indicates that this wasn't going to be permitted even if they were just carrying medical/food supplies, doctors, journalists and human rights activists.

Lol. It's called a blockade.

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 12:43am

Jesus1222 wrote: »

Any Islamist with a Kalashnikov and an internet connection can call himself Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is more of a brand name now, not just an organisation. Hamas has publicly rejected actual Al Qaeda statements from Al Zawahiri. These accusations relatively recent and iirc, only came out after Hamas took control of Gaza. 5 years after 911. Link.

Im not quite sure what youre getting at there but that link says Hamas have relations with al qaeda and thats from palestinians not Israelis

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 12:46am

Jesus1222 wrote: »

*sigh* I forgot to include the word "this". I thought it was implied. Why not let THIS humanitarian aid in?

the word this can change whole arguments nothing is implied here
and as another poster pointed out if they read the rules it would have made things a lot easier for themselves
the aid has to be checked to ensure weapons and weapon materials are not going to enter a hostile zone
as I said Ill wait till the video of the incident comes out before I pass judgement but I feel its a big publicity stunt that will be useful for a few days until all the facts come out

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 12:48am

Jesus1222 wrote: »

Lol. It's called a blockade.

yes a maritime blockade to ensure weapons dont get in remember the Karina?

Jesus1222 · 31-12-2008 12:57am

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

Im not quite sure what youre getting at there but that link says Hamas have relations with al qaeda and thats from palestinians not Israelis

You're not terribly bright are you. If somebody from a right-wing organisation can appraise the situation as he has done then it's questionable what, if any, truth there is to it. At best, it's allegation unproven.

Mahmoud Abbas (the man who wrote a book on Israel-Palestine peace agreements without once mentioning the word "occupation") said it. It doesn't mean it's true. He has reason for saying it. It's still just an allegation.

Going to sign out of this debate. Thumbs up to Manic Moran on the pro-Israeli side for being reasonable and engaging in discussion without snideness. To the rest of the pro-Israeli side, bar one or two posts, shrill cries of foul play from the other side, haughty remarks about recognition and terrorism and a point blank refusal to accept that Israel might even be 1% wrong on anything is precisely how the Israeli Government engages in debate and it's where you learned it from, some of you. It is absolutely no substitute for reasoned argument. It relegates you to the level of the lowest, most myopic, Neanderthal English football team supporter.

Hamas engage is terrorism and can be considered terrorists, but if that is true than Israel is 100 times worse than Hamas. It also runs the largest prison camp in the world, called the Gaza Strip. Israel tries to keep the situation 1 step ahead of complete collapse, the UN has said Gaza is on the brink, repeatedly, any miscalculation by Israel could make Gaza a death camp on a huge scale. Presuming they don't want that and the PR that comes with it (although it would solve a lot of problems for them if the Palestinians would just get up and leave). We could see tens of thousands and not the thousand or two thousand it looks like Israel will murder.

Good luck.

Jesus1222 · 31-12-2008 1:00am

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

the word this can change whole arguments nothing is implied here
and as another poster pointed out if they read the rules it would have made things a lot easier for themselves
the aid has to be checked to ensure weapons and weapon materials are not going to enter a hostile zone

"You can't come in". "Why not?". There's a sign *points*.

:rolleyes:Why not check the boat then and let badly needed medicine in then?

The facts are a boat carrying a few measely tonnes of medicine and supplies returned home with a huge hole in it's side after a run in with an Israeli vessel.

dlofnep · 31-12-2008 1:01am

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

they are a legitimate defence force that are internationally recognised
unlike Hamas that are the exact opposite

Being a "legitimate defence force" does them exempt from committing terrorist acts. The nazis were legitimate soldiers, does that mean that they were also exempt from terrorism?

When you educate yourself as to what the definition of terrorism is, then we'll further this conversation.

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 1:05am

dlofnep wrote: »

Being a "legitimate defence force" does them exempt from committing terrorist acts. The nazis were legitimate soldiers, does that mean that they were also exempt from terrorism?

When you educate yourself as to what the definition of terrorism is, then we'll further this conversation.

When you understand there is no definition (internationally)
then you may be able to make such ridiculous comments

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 1:07am

Jesus1222 wrote: »

The facts are a boat carrying a few measely tonnes of medicine and supplies returned home with a huge hole in it's side after a run in with an Israeli vessel.

at last we agree on something lets wait till all the facts come out on that one

IRISH RAIL · 31-12-2008 1:11am

Jesus1222 wrote: »

Hamas engage is terrorism and can be considered terrorists, but if that is true than Israel is 100 times worse than Hamas.

Good luck.

is that statemeant trying to say hamas are not terrorists or that there is some kind of doubt that hamas are terrorists ?

Frankie Lee · 31-12-2008 1:19am

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

is that statemeant trying to say hamas are not terrorists or that there is some kind of doubt that hamas are terrorists ?

No its a simple enough concept.
Hamas are what could be described as a terrorist organisation.
If applying the same logic to the actions of the Israeli state, the conclusion would be that they are a much worse terrorist organisation.

dlofnep · 31-12-2008 1:22am

IRISH RAIL wrote: »

When you understand there is no definition (internationally)
then you may be able to make such ridiculous comments

Do you have any of your own thoughts on the matter or are you just going to plagiarize wikipedia? I think you'll find discrepancies from a few sources because if they agreed to the universal definition (which is using terror to achieve) then the United States, Britain and Israel would all be guilty of committing terrorist acts - And we couldn't have that, now could we?

If you believe for one moment that the IDF have not committed terrorist acts against the Palestinian people, then we have no need to further this conversation because you are incapable of seeing anything other than Zionist propaganda.

Manic Moran · 31-12-2008 2:17am

Lol. It's called a blockade.

Odd, that. Neither is it new or unexpected. Yet someone still tried to run the known blockade with the obvious results.

NTM

The Saint · 31-12-2008 2:24am

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Tell me where in the charter where it states that this is the interpretation of Jihad. It doesn't and just because you say it does doesn't make it so. The term is ambiguous. While they might mean violent Jihad (and they probably do) we can't tell for sure.

However they state that

Article Thirty-One:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions. It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

There is far less ambiguity in this statement than in the previous statement.

donegalfella wrote: »

Israel is certainly interested in a settlement—just not one dictated to it by terrorists.

What about one offered by the 22 member Arab League with Israel abiding by its obligations under international law?

1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Comments