1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote: »

True enough, but on that note, to quote a fairly intelligent woman.

War in the Middle East will end when Palestinians start to love their children more than they hate Israel

Was it Anne Coulter? Palin?

Honestly MM, you're smarter than that and I'd consider you astute enough to spot an utterly uber-f*cktarded statement when heard/read. And that above quoted comment is very much inside the uber-f*cktard category.

Would you give a state that offers your children nothing but brutality, humiliation, and at-best indiscriminate death, the time of day? I'd be hard pressed to find a parent who would.

Ping Chow Chi

Manic Moran wrote: »

True enough, but on that note, to quote a fairly intelligent woman.

War in the Middle East will end when Palestinians start to love their children more than they hate Israel


NTM

You really think its as simplistic as this?

Jack Bauer999

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather lose the PR battle and have the other guy get slaughtered to 'really quite dead and not breathing' levels.

If the other side is past caring about public relations, you really need a Plan B beyond getting deaded. Otherwise, the victory is... well.. kindof pointless, really.

NTM

Israel have not got a hope of wiping out Hamas wiht this war.
Israel Intellengence estimated a few year ago that the amount of Hamas fighters in brigades alone at around 40,000. the 500 fighter israel have claimed to have killed so far are going to be replaces 5 times over by
a new wave of recruits becuase of this slaughter.


Israel do very much care about PR, they want to be able appear as a
legimite, civilised country fighting the evil around them, it was the world feeling sorry for the Jews in the first place that got them thier country,

quad_red

Sand wrote: »

It doesnt change that its terminally, recklessly, stupidly moronic for Hamas to engage in thousands of rocket attacks - which are totally ineffective in any military terms - on the greatest regional military power, provoking a totally predicatable retaliation. Right or wrong, its dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And Gaza is now paying the bill. If they want it to stop, its very simple - stop the rocket attacks. The rocket attacks are utterly pointless anyway - why does Hamas place so much value on murdering Israeli civillians that it will gladly trade hundreds, or thousands of Palestinian lives so it can have the opportunity to do so.

It could be argued that Hamas was trying to force concessions out of the Israeli's. Perhaps an end to the crippling blockade. Movements that might alleviate the daily suffering of the Palestinian people who live in poverty with regular and reliable access to the things that are taken for granted elsewhere.

Could they have predicted the brutal ferocity of the Israeli response? They clearly didn't take into account the score settling and the urge to make a statement in blood that the IDF felt it needed to make after the Lebanon debacle.

Or maybe they did.

But is Israel undermining the logic of those who present Israel as an evil, cruel, self serving and wholly hypocritical oppressor.

Or copper fastening and ensuring that it will endure for another generation.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

True enough, but on that note, to quote a fairly intelligent woman.

War in the Middle East will end when Palestinians start to love their children more than they hate Israel

NTM

Didn't she also deny the existence of the Palestinians? Ignoring the fact that there was a Palestine under the Ottomans. I wonder why she would do that. I would hardly call her inteligent then. In fact I would say she was the opposite.

Of course there is also the little matter that the quote can just as easily be turned around, but I won't do that, as I don't want to descend to her level.

speedboatchase

So is this "debate" 99 or 100% pro-Hamas? Israel is well within its right to react to an unprovoked attack from Hamas aggressors, whose values and actions are typical of every barbaric Islamic extremist group there. Hamas just has better PR that allows bleeding hearts to compare their targeting of civilians and disgusting human-shield tactics to blindside Irish people amongst others into believing there's some link between them and Collins et al

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055776.html

Lovely bunch of lads

wes

speedboatchase wrote: »

So is this "debate" 99 or 100% pro-Hamas? Israel is well within its right to react to an unprovoked attack from Hamas aggressors, whose values and actions are typical of every barbaric Islamic extremist group there. Hamas just has better PR that allows bleeding hearts to compare their targeting of civilians and disgusting human-shield tactics to blindside Irish people amongst others into believing there's some link between them and Collins et al

You seem to leave out the fact that Israel as the occupier are the aggressors.

Secondly there is the little matter of the violent colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, then there is Israels system of apartheid. Then there was the siege on Gaza, an act of collective punishment on 1.5 million people, which amounted to state terrorism. Neither Israel or Hamas are the good guys. Neither side has shown any kind of regard to the life of civilians.

Also, the accusations of being pro-Hamas are getting old. Opposing what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, does not make one pro-Hamas.

Also, Hamas has better PR? That a joke right? Israel has way more money to expend on PR. Only this time no one is buying it. It has nothing to do with Hamas and everything to do with Israels atrocities in Gaza and people finding out the facts for themselves.

paulaa

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

globalresearch.ca is not an unbiased source.

for example heres them complaining about the bbc being pro israeli...anyone who thinks the beeb is pro-israel would need to be pretty mad http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9307

more whining from globalresearch http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11664

alarmist claptrap http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11743 (hmmm globalresearch...ever think Israel might be using lots of bunker busting bombs at the moment...they might be useful against tunnels no?)



Heres a funny one http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11520 (like jews in Iran could be expected to say anything pro-israel without ending up beaten/shot/raped...etc.

As I said in another post, the original link I had bookmarked about the Gazan gas fields was to the US Dept. of State Blog website. It was exactly the same information that is on the Global research site. Just to put your mind at rest here's another link

"The Israel Corporation, controlled by Sami Ofer and his son Idan, is negotiating with energy giant BG (formerly British Gas) to buy its holdings in the Gaza Marine natural gas field off the Gaza coast.

In addition, Israel Corp. owners have been attempting to sound out government authorities as to the validity of the BG's franchise for the field, which it received from the Palestinian Authority. The Israel Corporation has also been inquiring into whether the state will support such a move.

Israel is expected to face a natural gas shortage withing five years, and this business opportunity has attracted many new faces to consider entering the local market. One of these is The Israel Corp., the country's largest private customer of natural gas.
Advertisement
The law regulating the natural gas market limits the company in its ability to control a natural gas source, as it already controls the Oil Refineries. However, even if the Ofers decide to buy BG's holdings anyway, the demand for the gas from The Israel Corp. and its subsidiaries, Israel Chemicals and the refineries, may in itself make the deal worthwhile. " (continued)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/982107.html

paulaa

Jack Bauer999 wrote: »

Israel have not got a hope of wiping out Hamas wiht this war.
Israel Intellengence estimated a few year ago that the amount of Hamas fighters in brigades alone at around 40,000. the 500 fighter israel have claimed to have killed so far are going to be replaces 5 times over by
a new wave of recruits becuase of this slaughter.


Israel do very much care about PR, they want to be able appear as a
legimite, civilised country fighting the evil around them, it was the world feeling sorry for the Jews in the first place that got them their country,

Of course PR is important. If their image is one of brutal aggressors they lose both votes internally and the good will of their sugar daddy, the US.
They have even resorted to this to spread their propaganda to justify this "war" in Gaza


"Hasbara spam alert
With Israel's foreign ministry organising volunteers to flood news websites with pro-Israeli comments, Propaganda 2.0 is here


The hasbara brigade strikes again! You always hear about Israeli attempts at media manipulation. Everyone knows it's going on but usually the process happens through cyber insurgents like those involved with Giyus (and its media monitoring software, Megaphone). Now, we know that the Israeli foreign ministry itself is orchestrating propaganda efforts designed to flood news websites with pro-Israel arguments and information."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media

paulaa

quad_red wrote: »

It could be argued that Hamas was trying to force concessions out of the Israeli's. Perhaps an end to the crippling blockade. Movements that might alleviate the daily suffering of the Palestinian people who live in poverty with regular and reliable access to the things that are taken for granted elsewhere.

Could they have predicted the brutal ferocity of the Israeli response? They clearly didn't take into account the score settling and the urge to make a statement in blood that the IDF felt it needed to make after the Lebanon debacle.

Or maybe they did.

But is Israel undermining the logic of those who present Israel as an evil, cruel, self serving and wholly hypocritical oppressor.

Or copper fastening and ensuring that it will endure for another generation.

The Palestinians had nothing more to lose, they knew that if not this week Israeli aggression was always on the cards.

The homemade rockets were more of a 2-fingered gesture and a way to draw the attention of the world than any real threat to Israel. 23 Israelis killed in 8 years, including those who died in this fiasco. Suicide bombers have not been active for over a year despite the IDF propaganda that always mentions them.

paulaa

speedboatchase wrote: »

So is this "debate" 99 or 100% pro-Hamas? Israel is well within its right to react to an unprovoked attack from Hamas aggressors, whose values and actions are typical of every barbaric Islamic extremist group there. Hamas just has better PR that allows bleeding hearts to compare their targeting of civilians and disgusting human-shield tactics to blindside Irish people amongst others into believing there's some link between them and Collins et al

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055776.html

Lovely bunch of lads

From the same newspaper
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054916.html

Lemming

speedboatchase wrote: »

So is this "debate" 99 or 100% pro-Hamas?

Ah that old chestnut. "If you are not with us, you are against us".
Give it a rest and join the real world please.

I think few people here are genuinely cheering Hamas on. I certainly am not. But I also recognise brutality when I see it. And the Israeli government & IDF have it written all over their words and actions. You don't need to be pro anybody to call a spade is a spade. To claim otherwise is disengenious, insulting, and smacks of biased agenda & ulterior motive.

Run_to_da_hills

Israel has now stooped to a new low and has started to bomb graveyards.
(At least the casualties cannot be made any more deader. )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1114982/Bin-Laden-demands-holy-war-Israel-bombs-dead-Gaza-cemeteries.html

Mr.Micro

With all its might Israel has not, or ultimately will not, defeat Hamas no more than it defeated Hisbollah. It needs to review its strategy in view of the latest debacle it finds itself in. It has lost the PR war as far as reasonable people in the world are concerned, but others, many on boards.ie, I will bet, who probably go about dressed in combats, who are only too happy to see Israel keep on killing with ever increasing ferocity with claims of justification. Israel will have to live with its actions after this and that is a factor it needs to consider, as a legitimate state it has to show it is capable of compromise.

meanmachine3

just watched sky news about 11.45 this morning and never seem such crap in all my life. they were interviewing mark regev (israeli spokesman) and some guy called gunness from U.N. regev was making excuses and not giving a straight answer. the israelis used phosphorus on the U.N. compound and this guy mek was basically stating it was more like hamas who used it on the compound. he was then changing his story about last weeks attack on another compound saying firstly that hamas were inside the compound then saying in the next breath that they were in the vicinity. i'm sickened by what he was saying. he was also going on about trying to avoid civillian casualties and that they could've carpet bombed gaza if they didn't care. The U.N. s/general is said to be furious but t.b.h. who in the hell is going to stop the israelis from doing what they like. they have the backing of the yanks.
Are the U.N. going to set a war crimes trib and bring the israelis to justice. yeah right. and would the yanks support the same ,i think not.
i read an article in last weeks star and basically it said that gaza as a whole is like a concentration camp.if you sit back and think about it i.e. it's location, the blockade thats been there for years, no one gets in or out without israeli approval. it definately comes across like one. Christ it reminds me of escape from new york.
we can rant and rave here there and everywhere but this wont end till the israelis say so.
also i would've thought that the use of phosphorus in artillary was outlawed in most countries because of the severe damage it can cause to the human body.
i heard some guy last week on sky news and he made a valid point in saying that
" did the british go over and bomb the catholic areas when the I.R.A. tried to kill maggie in brighton"
to me the scenarios are exactly the same.
hamas/IRA bombing what they believe to be an occupier israel/ britain of their land.
before anyone has a go at me ,to me the two are very comparable, yes i know the so called war up the north is over. but history is repeating itself in another part of this world.

LordSutch

meanmachine3 wrote: »

i heard some guy last week on sky news and he made a valid point in saying that " did the british go over and bomb the catholic areas when the I.R.A. tried to kill maggie in brighton" to me the scenarios are exactly the same. hamas/IRA bombing what they believe to be an occupier israel/ britain of their land. before anyone has a go at me ,to me the two are very comparable, yes i know the so called war up the north is over. but history is repeating itself in another part of this world.

Well I am going to have a go at you right now.

What the IRA did was appaling, it was murder, it was disgusting, & it was never justified or condoned by the people of this island North or South, and the Good friday has stated that the people of the North can remain British, & remain joined to Britain if they wish, Northern Ireland is indeed 'occupied' by British people, and they are there to stay or fade away but not to be Bombed or Shot out of existence!

Remember that it was only after the IRAs Bombings & Murders ceased, that Sinn Fein becam more popular in parts of Northern Ireland ~ whats happening in Israel/Gaza is very different & comparrisons cannot be made.

paulaa

I agree with your post meanmachine3. Sky news is a sister station to Fox News so it's not surprising which way it's bias leans. I watch CNN and Al Jazeera, as well as several others, and I find them both to be the least biased of all the stations. Despite what others say about Al Jazeera they try to balance the coverage with interviews and reports from both sides.

I see Israel is already making plans for Gaza after the "war" :rolleyes:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055553.html

Serenity Now!

meanmachine3 wrote: »

Are the U.N. going to set a war crimes trib and bring the israelis to justice. yeah right. and would the yanks support the same ,i think not

Great article on war crimes can be seen in today's Irish Times. It can be found here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0115/1231738223578.html

Some of the sanctimonious wiki-wagglers who post on this subject should read it for an expert opinion on 'war crimes' and how both sides commit them.

Lemming

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Some of the sanctimonious wiki-wagglers who post on this subject should read it for an expert opinion on 'war crimes' and how both sides commit them.

"Expert"? I wouldn't entirely know about that. Half-way knowledgeable I'm sure, but expert I would take with a pinch of salt since the media bandies the term "expert" about very loosely on a wide range of subjects.

IrishTimes article wrote:

Dr Tom Clonan is The Irish Times security analyst. He also lectures at DIT school of media

Serenity Now!

Lemming wrote: »

"Expert"? I wouldn't entirely know about that. Half-way knowledgeable I'm sure, but expert I would take with a pinch of salt since the media bandies the term "expert" about very loosely on a wide range of subjects.

I called him one. I don't see the Irish Times or "the media" doing so. He's bang on the button with his points too.

Lemming

Serenity Now! wrote: »

I called him one. I don't see the Irish Times or "the media" doing so. He's bang on the button with his points too.

I'm not commenting on what he's saying, I just wouldn't front it as authoritative fact.

The Saint

Can one of the military men here, either Mairt or Manic Moran answer me a question? I read this on the BBC News website:

Speaking to reporters on the Israel-Gaza border, Unrwa spokesman Christopher Gunness said three of the agency's employees were hurt in the attack.

He said the compound was hit by what Unrwa believed to be three white phosphorus shells, which are incendiary weapons used as a smoke screen.

Now I understand the ambiguity about using white phosphorus in urban conflict situations. I know under international law they can he used as smokescreens and such. However, for this I presume that these would operate in the way that we have been seeing; shells bursting in the air spreading the white phosphorus. However this BBC article seems to say that the UN HQ was hit by WP shells. Would this constitute using WP as a weapon rather than a spokescreen?

AnimalRights

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7830253.stm

If Israel had any other backer they'd be up for war crimes.

meanmachine3

Camelot wrote: »

Well I am going to have a go at you right now.

What the IRA did was appaling, it was murder, it was disgusting, & it was never justified or condoned by the people of this island North or South, and the Good friday has stated that the people of the North can remain British, & remain joined to Britain if they wish, Northern Ireland is indeed 'occupied' by British people, and they are there to stay or fade away but not to be Bombed or Shot out of existence!

Remember that it was only after the IRAs Bombings & Murders ceased, that Sinn Fein becam more popular in parts of Northern Ireland ~ whats happening in Israel/Gaza is very different & comparrisons cannot be made.

yes what they did is far worse than what hamas are doing or ever did but my point and the point made by the commentator on sky news is this. the british government.
did not send over war planes/ attack helicopters to bomb the **** out the catholics.
did not send in their main battle tanks i.e. chieftan/ challengers. to kill civillians.
did not in any shape or form use white phosphorous shells in urban areas.
what i am about to say next will come out in the open sooner or later. did not use cluster bombs in any areas of the north.

meanmachine3

The Saint wrote: »

Can one of the military men here, either Mairt or Manic Moran answer me a question? I read this on the BBC News website:

Now I understand the ambiguity about using white phosphorus in urban conflict situations. I know under international law they can he used as smokescreens and such. However, for this I presume that these would operate in the way that we have been seeing; shells bursting in the air spreading the white phosphorus. However this BBC article seems to say that the UN HQ was hit by WP shells. Would this constitute using WP as a weapon rather than a spokescreen?

i'll answer that. the answer is yes W.P. was and is being used as a weapon.

quad_red

The Saint wrote: »

Now I understand the ambiguity about using white phosphorus in urban conflict situations. I know under international law they can he used as smokescreens and such. However, for this I presume that these would operate in the way that we have been seeing; shells bursting in the air spreading the white phosphorus. However this BBC article seems to say that the UN HQ was hit by WP shells. Would this constitute using WP as a weapon rather than a spokescreen?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece

The Times has identified stockpiles of white phosphorus (WP) shells from high-resolution images taken of Israel Defence Forces (IDF) artillery units on the Israeli-Gaza border this week. The pale blue 155mm rounds are clearly marked with the designation M825A1, an American-made WP munition. The shell is an improved version with a more limited dispersion of the phosphorus, which ignites on contact with oxygen, and is being used by the Israeli gunners to create a smoke screen on the ground.

The rounds, which explode into a shower of burning white streaks, were first identified by The Times at the weekend when they were fired over Gaza at the start of Israel's ground offensive. Artillery experts said that the Israeli troops would be in trouble if they were banned from using WP because it is the simplest way of creating smoke to protect them from enemy fire.

LordSutch

meanmachine3 wrote: »

yes what they did is far worse than what hamas are doing or ever did but my point and the point made by the commentator on sky news is this. the british government.
did not send over war planes/ attack helicopters to bomb the **** out the catholics.
did not send in their main battle tanks i.e. chieftan/ challengers. to kill civillians.
did not in any shape or form use white phosphorous shells in urban areas.
what i am about to say next will come out in the open sooner or later. did not use cluster bombs in any areas of the north.

I agree with you on this Post.

Serenity Now!

Lemming wrote: »

I'm not commenting on what he's saying, I just wouldn't front it as authoritative fact.

oh ffs.
It doesn't get much simpler than the manner he has laid it out for the layman to understand.
Unless of course you wish to disprove??

The Saint

quad_red wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece

The Times has identified stockpiles of white phosphorus (WP) shells from high-resolution images taken of Israel Defence Forces (IDF) artillery units on the Israeli-Gaza border this week. The pale blue 155mm rounds are clearly marked with the designation M825A1, an American-made WP munition. The shell is an improved version with a more limited dispersion of the phosphorus, which ignites on contact with oxygen, and is being used by the Israeli gunners to create a smoke screen on the ground.

The rounds, which explode into a shower of burning white streaks, were first identified by The Times at the weekend when they were fired over Gaza at the start of Israel's ground offensive. Artillery experts said that the Israeli troops would be in trouble if they were banned from using WP because it is the simplest way of creating smoke to protect them from enemy fire.

I'm aware of this. I'm asking since the UN HQ was hit by WP "shells" does that mean its being used as a weapon as opposed to the shells bursting in the air creating a smokescreen like we've seen already.

uprising

The Saint wrote: »

Can one of the military men here, either Mairt or Manic Moran answer me a question? I read this on the BBC News website:

Now I understand the ambiguity about using white phosphorus in urban conflict situations. I know under international law they can he used as smokescreens and such. However, for this I presume that these would operate in the way that we have been seeing; shells bursting in the air spreading the white phosphorus. However this BBC article seems to say that the UN HQ was hit by WP shells. Would this constitute using WP as a weapon rather than a spokescreen?

Earlier in this thread one of the experts laughed at a poster for stating that cluster bombs were used, they were and ARE used, incendary cluster bombs with a white phosphorous filling to burn to the bone and beyond.
And what was the expert reason behind smoke screens?, for what?, troops were still beyond the border and I presume smoke screens are supposed to block view of "terrorists" so they cant see invading forces and wouldnt these smoke screens hamper the pilots view to pinpoint "TERRORISTS".
The only reason W.P. has been rained down on Gaza is to burn into whoever and whatever it lands on, its a warcrime.
Israel are warcriminals always have been, always will be.
Paulaa thanks for bringing a new perspective here.