Most Americans believe torture can be justified - poll

wylie

It would seem you are right, there is evidence of mass rape during war. ww2, bosnia, yugoslavia and the gulf war. thats shocking. Afghanistan had 160 reported cases in 2013, although they expect this figure to be much higher, but people are afraid of the taliban. So don't complain.

raze_them_all_

wylie wrote: »

It would seem you are right, there is evidence of mass rape during war. ww2, bosnia, yugoslavia and the gulf war. thats shocking. Afghanistan had 160 reported cases in 2013, although they expect this figure to be much higher, but people are afraid of the taliban. So don't complain.

lol I am not afraid of the taliban in the slightest.

So don't complain about rape because some people are afraid of a couple of lads in a cave.



Good logic

wylie

raze_them_all_ wrote: »

lol I am not afraid of the taliban in the slightest.

So don't complain about rape because some people are afraid of a couple of lads in a cave.



Good logic

Do you think i am saying "don't complain about rape because of the taliban"

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So by that reckoning you have just justified suicide bombing.

You're truly abysmal at this.

In the context of torture, everyone has a line they will cross to try and obtain information, to claim otherwise is hypocrisy and naive.

In my case, while generally against torture, should there be a serious threat to my children, and a person in front of me has information, however little, that might obviate that risk, may his gods help him.

No where have I justified suicide bombing, although I am sure they justify it to themselves.

Santa Cruz

wylie wrote: »

The IRA went after military targets and army personal, plus they gave 30 min warnings in most cases so as to limit casualties, i understand this didn't always work, but they never went directly after children or cutting the heads off innocent people on TV to make a political statement.

Torturing someone can only work if the information can be verified. Locations of terrorist cells,weapon caches and financier's. Torturing someone about a previous terror act is pointless as everyone would have a breaking point and admit to anything.

If the IRA was cutting the heads of people and suicide bombings etc then hell yeah. Torture the s**t out of them.

You really would want to read about the no warning bombings of Birmingham and Enniskillen, the murder of a six month old baby of a British soldier and countless executions of innocent people carried out by the Provos.

wylie

Santa Cruz wrote: »

You really would want to read about the no warning bombings of Birmingham and Enniskillen, the murder of a six month old baby of a British soldier and countless executions of innocent people carried out by the Provos.

As i said in my post "I understand it didn't always work and in most cases warnings were giving", but tbh we could sit here and point fingers about atrocity's carried out by both sides during the troubles.

Skylinehead

ScumLord wrote: »

I have a rock here that keeps terrorists away, if it can save lives what's the harm in keeping the rock close by? What if the question the torturer is asking is "are you a terrorist?"

The other problem with torturing extremist terrorists is they tend to be isolated into their own cells so they don't have any information about the rest of the network.

Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

Timberrrrrrrr

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You're truly abysmal at this.

In the context of torture, everyone has a line they will cross to try and obtain information, to claim otherwise is hypocrisy and naive.

In my case, while generally against torture, should there be a serious threat to my children, and a person in front of me has information, however little, that might obviate that risk, may his gods help him.

No where have I justified suicide bombing, although I am sure they justify it to themselves.

But what if you only THINK that person has information? Do you torture and jail an innocent person on the off chance that maybe they hold some information? If i show up.with Mohammed xxxxxx tomorrow and claim he is Taliban and has info on training camps and possible suicide bombers how long will YOU be willing to hold and torture this man without any other shred of evidence?

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But what if you only THINK that person has information? Do you torture and jail an innocent person on the off chance that maybe they hold some information? If i show up.with Mohammed xxxxxx tomorrow and claim he is Taliban and has info on training camps and possible suicide bombers how long will YOU be willing to hold and torture this man without any other shred of evidence?

As I said I'm.generally anti torture, or indeed inflicting pain on others unless my kids were threatened.
In the above, the first thing I'd ask you is "what's your evidence"?

Timberrrrrrrr

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

As I said I'm.generally anti torture, or indeed inflicting pain on others unless my kids were threatened.
In the above, the first thing I'd ask you is "what's your evidence"?

But America has not needed evidence, what if i claim telling you would compromise other operations i have going?

MRnotlob606

Torture is disgusting.

Tony EH

wylie wrote: »

Asking someone whom you suspect is a terrorist "are you are terrorist" is a pretty redundant question, but asking questions like were did you get the RPG might help, Who should you how to make the bomb.

American torturers wouldn't need to ask such questions. They'll know the answer already...America.

:pac:

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But America has not needed evidence, what if i claim telling you would compromise other operations i have going?

What if indeed.

Timberrrrrrrr

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What if indeed.

What if indeed

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

As I said I'm.generally anti torture, or indeed inflicting pain on others unless my kids were threatened.
In the above, the first thing I'd ask you is "what's your evidence"?

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What if indeed

& if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle

we both appear to be anti torture, but in my case I will readily admit there is a line I would cross in certain circumstances. you have yet to indicate if such a line exists for yourself.

not sure what point you're making really, consistently trotting out anti US, antiIsrael, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism left wing cliches, replete with whataboutery and other false dilemmas. There seem to be few genuine opinions of your own offered.
Is 2nd Soc&Pol this limited these days?

Tin Foil Hat

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

Go back a few hundred year and you'll find plenty of examples of people who will admit to being witches under torture. People who will give up their mothers and sisters as being witches under torture. People who will literally confess to possessing supernatural gifts, such as the gift of flight, under torture.
People who consider information obtained under torture as reliable information should be stripped of their vote, barred from public office and barred from any job with more responsibility than assembling fast food burgers.

NotASheeple

Tzardine wrote: »

It's the reality of the world we live in.

Yes but only if your either a fanatical Neocon fruitcake or an ISIS supporting nut job.

Streetwalker

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Torture is disgusting.

Agreed. It can never be justified.

Timberrrrrrrr

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

& if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle

we both appear to be anti torture, but in my case I will readily admit there is a line I would cross in certain circumstances. you have yet to indicate if such a line exists for yourself.

Is there a point where i would be willing to let someone be tortured in the off chance that the methods used will force that person to tell the truth? No, simply because (as has been pointed out several times already) confessions that have been extracted using torture means nothing.

I could strap you to a chair today and by midnight have you confessing to being the mastermind behind 9-11, JFK assassination and global warming. The confession will be worthless simply because it was forced from you but some seem to think this is a viable method of "stopping terrorism"

not sure what point you're making really, consistently trotting out anti US, antiIsrael, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism left wing cliches, replete with whataboutery and other false dilemmas. There seem to be few genuine opinions of your own offered.
Is 2nd Soc&Pol this limited these days?

I'm not anti American i am anti American foreign policy

I'm not anti Israeli i am anti Israeli government policy of murdering kids.

Not anti capitalism i am against the theft of resources and the starting of wars/the murder of innocent people and the removal of governments and leaders to suit agendas.


Anti imperialism for sure, do you agree with Russia's take over of Ukraine? Would you be ok if China decided to just move in and take Taiwan? North Korea to move south? How about Britain decides it wants Ireland back? Or does imperialism only make sense when there is oil and other natural resources at hand?

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Is there a point where i would be willing to let someone be tortured in the off chance that the methods used will force that person to tell the truth? No, simply because (as has been pointed out several times already) confessions that have been extracted using torture means nothing.

I could strap you to a chair today and by midnight have you confessing to being the mastermind behind 9-11, JFK assassination and global warming. The confession will be worthless simply because it was forced from you but some seem to think this is a viable method of "stopping terrorism"



I'm not anti American i am anti American foreign policy

I'm not anti Israeli i am anti Israeli government policy of murdering kids.

Not anti capitalism i am against the theft of resources and the starting of wars/the murder of innocent people and the removal of governments and leaders to suit agendas.


Anti imperialism for sure, do you agree with Russia's take over of Ukraine? Would you be ok if China decided to just move in and take Taiwan? North Korea to move south? How about Britain decides it wants Ireland back? Or does imperialism only make sense when there is oil and other natural resources at hand?

noted.
I'm not going to engage in whatifery with you, but everyone has a line they would cross, despite any moral assertions to the contrary from the comfort of their bedrooms in nice safe Ireland, safe because of the likes of the Americans and British foreign policies.

BTW, Israel doesn't have a policy of murdering kids; just think about it, and how its not in their interests. That said, kids do get killed in the conflict, and its terrible.

mikom

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

noted.
I'm not going to engage in whatifery with you, but everyone has a line they would cross, despite any moral assertions to the contrary from the comfort of their bedrooms in nice safe Ireland, safe because of the likes of the Americans and British foreign policies.

A little light reading for you........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings

Awaits the "but that was 1974" comment.

Roger Hassenforder

mikom wrote: »

A little light reading for you........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings

Awaits the "but that was 1974" comment.

sorry, there wont be such a comment.
Do you not think Ireland is safe?

mikom

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

sorry, there wont be such a comment.
Do you not think Ireland is safe?

Dublin was safe on the 16th of May 1974.
Then the 17th happened.

See how that works.

Roger Hassenforder

mikom wrote: »

Dublin was safe on the 16th of May 1974.
Then the 17th happened.

See how that works.

1974... See how that worked?
Do you feel safe in Ireland now?

Jawgap

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

1974... See how that worked?
Do you feel safe in Ireland now?

We've never been safer or healthier in our history than we are now.

Timberrrrrrrr

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

noted.
I'm not going to engage in whatifery with you, but everyone has a line they would cross, despite any moral assertions to the contrary from the comfort of their bedrooms in nice safe Ireland, safe because of the likes of the Americans and British foreign policies.

You're ****ting me right? American foreign policy is probably the biggest threat to the world. We're not safe because of America's foreign policy we are safe DESPITE their foreign policy!

BTW, Israel doesn't have a policy of murdering kids; just think about it, and how its not in their interests. That said, kids do get killed in the conflict, and its terrible.

Kids get killed because the IDF deliberately target civilian areas and hospitals where those kids are sheltering. If the deliberate targeting of kids is not considered murder then i don't know what is.

SpaceTime

What's worrying is that this treatment of prisoners is looking a lot more like extrajudicial punishment than interrogation.

It's a line that no state should cross but many do when they're responding to extreme violence and threats of terrorism.

Moving prisoners outside the US to skirt American law was also a very strange and dangerous thing to do. They should have the right to due process under American law and that should always have been the case.

Underming that is about as "unamerican" as you can get.

Jawgap

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

noted.
I'm not going to engage in whatifery with you, but everyone has a line they would cross, despite any moral assertions to the contrary from the comfort of their bedrooms in nice safe Ireland, safe because of the likes of the Americans and British foreign policies.

Seriously, neither the UK nor US faced, ever, an existential threat from Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Iraq. Their interventionist foreign policies became self-fulfilling.

We do not need their foreign policies and it would serve us very well to show as much clear water between us and them as possible.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

BTW, Israel doesn't have a policy of murdering kids; just think about it, and how its not in their interests. That said, kids do get killed in the conflict, and its terrible.

They may not have a policy of targeting and killing kids but if you have a policy of firing Hellfire missiles into built up areas, kids are going to get killed.

It's like me blowing someone's head off and saying "Ooops, I was aiming for his ear lobe." Both actions are reckless in the extreme.

mikom

Jawgap wrote: »

We've never been safer or healthier in our history than we are now.

Said the prisoner in guantanamo bay.

Jawgap

mikom wrote: »

Said the prisoner in guantanamo bay.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Torturing, extraordinary rendition, US, UK & NATO interventions haven't made us as safe and healthy as we are now - that's why torture is a complete waste of time - it achieves nothing - it serves no ends - and it doesn't make things better.

It may make certain people feel better to think 'dangerous' people are being physically and/or mentally abused, but that's about all torture achieves.

9/11 etc didn't come out of nowhere - there were signs, there was information etc all flowing without torture. The failure (we know with hindsight) was one of systems (for example the move away from human source intelligence and its downgrading) and interpretation not information - would analysts be better at interpretation if they were tortured?

mikom

Jawgap wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is.

Torturing, extraordinary rendition, US, UK & NATO interventions haven't made us as safe and healthy as we are now - that's why torture is a complete waste of time - it achieves nothing - it serves no ends - and it doesn't make things better.

It may make certain people feel better to think 'dangerous' people are being physically and/or mentally abused, but that's about all torture achieves.

9/11 etc didn't come out of nowhere - there were signs, there was information etc all flowing without torture. The failure (we know with hindsight) was one of systems (for example the move away from human source intelligence and its downgrading) and interpretation not information - would analysts be better at interpretation if they were tortured?

You will get no argument from me on that.

end of the road

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

everyone has a line they would cross, despite any moral assertions to the contrary from the comfort of their bedrooms in nice safe Ireland

tim doesn't have a line, as he says so then its true. as you can't prove it, its true. what he says in relation to him goes.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

safe because of the likes of the Americans and British foreign policies.

bahahahahahahahahaha. sweet mother of jesus. britain attacked, america attacked, because of their foreign policies. ireland, not attacked, because we mind our business and try to be friendly with almost everyone. ireland is safe because we keep our mouth shut, and yes i haven't forgotten about shannon, but its most likely the belief we are effectively bullied into letting the US use it for fear their might be "consiquences" in relation to jobs.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Israel doesn't have a policy of murdering kids; just think about it, and how its not in their interests.

israel has a policy of slaughtering those who are not of "the right stock" stealing their land and the rest. even if your not the right type of jew your screwed in that sespit. everything is in their interests because they can get away with it by crying anti-cemitism when someone dares to tell them they are wrong or speak the truth about this terrorist state.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

That said, kids do get deliberately killed in the conflict, and its terrible.

yes, they do. and poor "everyone feel sorry for us because jews were persecuted" little israel continues to get away with it.

twinytwo

Tzardine wrote: »

Absolutely it is justifiable.

It's the reality of the world we live in. If the torture of a person leads to the prevention of killing of innocent people then what is the problem.

Nice, law obiding people rarely get tortured.

except its been proven time and time again that torture dosent work as a way of getting information...... so ya....

Roger Hassenforder

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Kids get killed because the IDF deliberately target civilian areas and hospitals where those kids are sheltering. If the deliberate targeting of kids is not considered murder then i don't know what is.

here we go...
If Hamas didn't fire their rockets indiscriminately into Israel, from these same areas, they wouldn't be targeted. You are aware the Israelis give advance warning, with several independent reports of residents being prevented from leaving? A dead Palestinian kid is of no use to Israel, but very useful to Hamas. Both side have a responsibility for their tactics that lead to civilian deaths, while the action of Israel is arguably disproportionate, it has a duty to protect its citizens. Take off your blinkers.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You're ****ting me right? American foreign policy is probably the biggest threat to the world. We're not safe because of America's foreign policy we are safe DESPITE their foreign policy!

end of the road wrote: »

bahahahahahahahahaha. sweet mother of jesus. britain attacked, america attacked, because of their foreign policies. ireland, not attacked, because we mind our business and try to be friendly with almost everyone.

Since the US became a net exporter of gas and oil products, they could stay the f**k out of the middle east. Yes they've made some monumental messes, no one is denying, but when IS started on the Yazidis, who came screaming in from their bases in Cyprus and and carriers to the rescue?

Just so you know who's buttering your bread/paying your dole,
US firms have invested $204bn in Ireland; 115,000 people employed; €3bn contributed to the Irish Exchequer in taxes; €13bn in terms of payrolls, goods and services employed. We're well and truly in bed with them.

And if you honestly think we would be better of without America and Britain, for all their faults, doing what they do and have done, then I'd entreat you to remove yourselves from where you derive benefit, to one where your ramblings and ideals will find a more sympathetic audience, and from there espouse your views. At least I wont be able to accuse you of hypocrisy.

Decent broadband might be an issue, charging your ifone another, freedom of speech but a minor inconvenience to a champion such as yourself willing to undergo such privation for your noble cause.

Jawgap

Being a friend to a America and the UK (which we should be) doesn't mean we have to march in lock-step with them.

The fact is that IS is not a threat to European democracy and it's an Arab problem that the Arabs will solve. IS rhetoric focuses on 'far' and 'near' enemies. The 'near' enemy is Iran (the Shi'ia) that's who they want to go after first - good luck with that!!! When they're done with Iran then they'll be coming after us.

And while the US are flying a significant number of sorties against IS, the Iraqi and Qatari pilots are flying too. The US is carrying the bulk of the mission when it comes to air dropping supplies, air lifts and inflight refuelling. But at the moment it's a Jordanian pilot who is sitting in IS captivity - in other words, the US might be making the most visible contribution, but other countries are in there too, some at much greater risk.

EDIT: as regards US companies here, they didn't set up here out of charity. Yes we benefit hugely from their presence, but so do they in terms of tax reliefs.

end of the road

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If Hamas didn't fire their rockets indiscriminately into Israel, from these same areas, they wouldn't be targeted.

yes they would. israel wants to eradicate those of the wrong stock so they can take over the land to have one large jewish state. if they weren't raping and slaughtering, hamas wouldn't be firing their ineffective rockets from non civilian areas.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You are aware the Israelis give advance warning, with several independent reports of residents being prevented from leaving?

they give not enough warning or none at all. if its true that people are being prevented from leaving yet they bomb anyway, that is murder and proof they don't care as long as those who are non jew are eradicated.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

A dead Palestinian kid is of no use to Israel

its one less of the wrong stock though. so these kids being dead are some use to israel.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

very useful to Hamas.

to prove what a ferrel murding vermin state israel is yes.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Both side have a responsibility for their tactics that lead to civilian deaths

hamas take the little bit of responsibility they have strangely enough. israel just cry anti-cemitism and the rest.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

while the action of Israel is arguably disproportionate

its full on mass slaughter.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

it has a duty to protect its citizens.

not by slaughtering left right and centre.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Take off your blinkers.

they are off, and i see the jewish state for what it is, a discrace to the religion they claim to be of. they should be shunned like all other terrorist states are.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Since the US became a net exporter of gas and oil products, they could stay the f**k out of the middle east.

then thats exactly what they should do. they have caused most of the problems, britain isn't totally blameless either.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Yes they've made some monumental messes, no one is denying

a hell of a lot of a mess. people do deny as such though.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

when ISis started on the Yazidis, who came screaming in from their bases in Cyprus and and carriers to the rescue?

how lovely, do they want a medal? as they ****ed up iraq it was their job to come in to help. had they left alone in the first place, isis wouldn't have a foot hold in iraq. at least sadam as much as he was a piece of filth he kept the country stable.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Just so you know who's buttering your bread/paying your dole

lol!!!!!! . i'm not on the dole thanks so nobody is paying it.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

US firms have invested $204bn in Ireland; 115,000 people employed; €3bn contributed to the Irish Exchequer in taxes; €13bn in terms of payrolls, goods and services employed.

so what? would they like a medal for investing in a country which offers a low corporate tax rate and tax breaks meaning more proffit? they are here for the good tax breaks and low corporate tax rate and that is all, if any of those go they will be out of here like a shot. so nobody is buttering my bread. i owe the americans nothing, i owe nobody anything.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

We're well and truly in bed with them.

maybe, but thankfully i don't have to condone or agree with their actions in other countries, and there is nobody to make me do so, or nothing that can be done about it.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

if you honestly think we would be better of without America and Britain, for all their faults, doing what they do and have done, then I'd entreat you to remove yourselves from where you derive benefit, to one where your ramblings and ideals will find a more sympathetic audience, and from there espouse your views. At least I wont be able to accuse you of hypocrisy.

what are you on about. if i want to criticize the actions of britain and america i will. we would be better off without their foreign policy for definite.

Decent broadband might be an issue, charging your ifone another, freedom of speech but a minor inconvenience to a champion such as yourself willing to undergo such privation for your noble cause.[/QUOTE]

what ****ing noble cause. seriously what are you on about, i don't have an iphone nor am i going to waste money on one. but nice generalizations anyway, its all you have got

Roger Hassenforder

Jawgap wrote: »

The fact is that IS is not a threat to European democracy and it's an Arab problem that the Arabs will solve.

Agree, it has to be an Arab solution, but I'm not as optimistic as you. There seemed to be fcuk all happening until the yanks rode in and cobbled together a bit of an alliance.

end of the road wrote: »

yes they waffle waffle...

Have you anything to add? Anything constructive, other than the same auld meandering bullshit? Dead Palestinian kids are of far more use to Hamas than to Israel. There would be a lot more kids killed, if it wasn't for the limited restraint they are exercising. They are not deliberately targeting them, or raping* their way through Gaza. They could do more to avoid civillian casualties, but that doesn't seem to be your jist..

That said, I'll go a step further and condemn their tactics. I'd sooner see a realization of the two state solution achieved through meaningful negotiation.

two questions:

1. Do you condemn Hamas' strategy of firing rockets, building tunnels?
2. Do you acknowledge Israels right to exist?

*You might provide a source for your claim when you get a chance. And dont mind referencing that Keda nut.

end of the road

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Have you anything to add? Anything constructive

yes, its all i post.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

other than the same auld meandering bull****?

not meandering bull**** at all. just the truth.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Dead Palestinian kids are of far more use to Hamas than to Israel.

oh i don't know. especially when there is land that the israelies want involved.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

There would be a lot more kids killed, if it wasn't for the limited restraint they are exercising.

"limited restraint" lol. jesus if that is limited restraint then we can only imagine what they would be like if they weren't showing "limited restraint" . no, the americans are finally seeing them for what they are, hence why we aren't seeing what they are really capible of. give it time though.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

They are not deliberately targeting them, or raping* their way through Gaza.

they are. along with the west bank and all the other occupied territories.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

They could do more to avoid civillian casualties, but that doesn't seem to be your jist..

they could do a hell of a lot, but they don't want to. because they can get away with it by crying anti-cemitism when caught out

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

That said, I'll go a step further and condemn their tactics. I'd sooner see a realization of the two state solution achieved through meaningful negotiation.

good, thats a huge step in the right direction

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Do you condemn Hamas' strategy of firing rockets

if any rockets are being fired when not attacked, yes. but that hardly ever happens if at all. they only fire when israel starts the slaughtering, so i condone them in those circumstances.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

building tunnels?

yes i condone the building of tunnels to circumvent the illegal blockade.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Do you acknowledge Israels right to exist?

not on the stolen lands they thieved and eradicated the people from no . had it all been done properly, with no slaughtering and eradication of the people living on the lands in the first place, then yes i would happily recognize them.

Roger Hassenforder

So you're ok about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
Hypocrite much?

Jawgap

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So you're ok about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
Hypocrite much?

This is not Chicago in the 1920s - if they use a knife, the appropriate response is not a gun.

Both sides are as bad as each other and while Israel had a right to defend itself, the right is not absolute and carries an obligation that any force used by not disproportionate.

Jawgap

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So you're ok about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
Hypocrite much?

Out of interest. The Republic was used as a safe haven during The Troubles. In the wake of any atrocity committed up the North or in Britain, would the Brits have been justified in plonking a couple of 500lb bombs on selected houses in Dundalk for example if they had decent intelligence that the houses were bring used as safe houses? Or maybe on a Garda station if they had evidence of collusion?

end of the road

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So you're ok about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilians.
Hypocrite much?

no, and thats not what i said at all. but nice try at twisting.

Roger Hassenforder

end of the road wrote: »

no, and thats not what i said at all. but nice try at twisting.

this is what you said:

end of the road wrote: »

if any rockets are being fired when not attacked, yes. but that hardly ever happens if at all. they only fire when israel starts the slaughtering, so i condone them in those circumstances.

if being attacked you dont condemn them. So its ok for Israeli civillians to be targeted...
That sir, is hypocrisy.
I haven't twisted anything.

end of the road

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

this is what you said:

yes, and i stand by it. read it again

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

if being attacked you dont condemn them.

no, the palestinians have a right to repel the the israely army who keeps up and starts aggression at every opportunity, on made up grounds.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So its ok for Israeli civillians to be targeted...

no, and they aren't deliberately targeted unlike palestinian civilians.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I haven't twisted anything.

yes you have

Roger Hassenforder

Jawgap wrote: »

Out of interest. The Republic was used as a safe haven during The Troubles. In the wake of any atrocity committed up the North or in Britain, would the Brits have been justified in plonking a couple of 500lb bombs on selected houses in Dundalk for example if they had decent intelligence that the houses were bring used as safe houses? Or maybe on a Garda station if they had evidence of collusion?

if they Brits decide to bomb Dundalk, I'd point the lasers for them!

seriously, circumstances a tad different:
The republicans at the time were a minority, not a democratically elected government with a mandate to bring the existence of Britain to an end.
Bombing houses/civilians in Dundalk or Garda stations, would have been an attack on another "friendly" sovereign state, a significant trade partner, co member of the EEC, friend of America, their biggest ally, etc.
Much better to despatch an SAS squad.

I'm sure some elements of the British security services would have loved to, but the brits were cute enough not to leave any more fenian dead. And sure didn't we have the Monaghan and Dublin bombings, an attack by the UVF with collusion by NI/British security services.
There's a degree of rationality present, absent in the Israel/Hamas conflict.

Do you think they would have been justified?

Roger Hassenforder

end of the road wrote: »

yes, and i stand by it. read it again
yes you have

These Quassam/Grad/Fajr5/M302 rockets are fired indiscriminately into Israel, without any guidance system, towards populated areas. Some of them cost about 500 bucks to make. That the Israelis manage to shoot down most, and other fall in fields, doesn't diminish the fact that civilian population centers are targeted. Here's what Human Rights Watch has to say: "Palestinian armed groups made clear in their statements that harming civilians was their aim"
Israel has been (such) rocket free for 6 hours.Link is a little tool that resets every time a rocket is launched.

Fact: You very clearly stated you condone Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.
You even stood over them. And yet you claim I have twisted your words. I condemn targeting civilians, you cant even bring yourself to do that.

You have proven yourself incapable of coherent debate, rational thought, and without the capacity to consider anything from a different perspective. Based on your ramblings to date, you are also probably anti semitic.

Add me to your ignore list, as I have you. You have nothing to offer.

Jawgap

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

if they Brits decide to bomb Dundalk, I'd point the lasers for them!

seriously, circumstances a tad different:
The republicans at the time were a minority, not a democratically elected government with a mandate to bring the existence of Britain to an end.
Bombing houses/civilians in Dundalk or Garda stations, would have been an attack on another "friendly" sovereign state, a significant trade partner, co member of the EEC, friend of America, their biggest ally, etc.
Much better to despatch an SAS squad.

I'm sure some elements of the British security services would have loved to, but the brits were cute enough not to leave any more fenian dead. And sure didn't we have the Monaghan and Dublin bombings, an attack by the UVF with collusion by NI/British security services.
There's a degree of rationality present, absent in the Israel/Hamas conflict.

Do you think they would have been justified?

It doesn't matter whether I think it was justified. And the topic came in up in conversation between Thatcher and Reagan following the 1986 Libya bombings.

We did have the UVF attacks and it's was supported by the established British military - that being the case would the Irish government have been right to, for example, provide practical support to the IRA to undertake a proxy-strike in retaliation?

Roger Hassenforder

Jawgap wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether I think it was justified. And the topic came in up in conversation between Thatcher and Reagan following the 1986 Libya bombings.

We did have the UVF attacks and it's was supported by the established British military - that being the case would the Irish government have been right to, for example, provide practical support to the IRA to undertake a proxy-strike in retaliation?

Sure it doesn't matter what I think either so.
Irish government did provide support to the IRA during the troubles.
Ireland was even considering sending in troops, albeit in 1969

Jawgap

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Sure it doesn't matter what I think either so.
Irish government did provide support to the IRA during the troubles.
Ireland was even considering sending in troops, albeit in 1969

The government provided support, or people in government provided support?

The government did consider deploying troops to Derry and Newry, but thankfully common sense prevailed and they listened to the advice of the then Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces.

Roger Hassenforder

Jawgap wrote: »

The government provided support, or people in government provided support?

The government did consider deploying troops to Derry and Newry, but thankfully common sense prevailed and they listened to the advice of the then Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces.

is there a difference?
the advice of the Army was this is nuts and we'd be wiped out.