Iran, Israel and the Worlds Response.

RagShagBill

Sponge Bob wrote:

and there were no suicide bombers ANYWHERE before Israel invaded Lebanon in 1979/1980

That's hardly the point. I already said it would be naive to suggest that Israel's existence and actions have nothing to do with Islamic extremism, but to suggest that they are the whole cause - which my comments were in regards to origanally - is equally naive. For example, extremist Islamic suicide bombings in Bali, that has nothing to do with - in practice, not in rhetoric - with Israeli actions.

Sponge Bob

RagShagBill wrote:

That's hardly the point. I already said it would be naive to suggest that Israel's existence and actions have nothing to do with Islamic extremism, but to suggest that they are the whole cause - which my comments were in regards to origanally - is equally naive. For example, extremist Islamic suicide bombings in Bali, that has nothing to do with - in practice, not in rhetoric - with Israeli actions.

#


Well you have actually argued Israel out of existence with that load of ****e.

How much will it cost to build that huge barge and tow it to the south Atlantic ????

Capt'n Midnight

RagShagBill wrote:

I think you'll find that Israel is not allowed to do "whatever it likes". The UN consistently call it on its human rights abuses, its new wall and whatever other actions the UN finds inhumane. The fact that nothing gets done about it isn't because Israel has some sort of immunity against repurcussions, but that the UN is a weak, impotent and inefficient institution.

they more or less ignore the UN http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/special-edition/terrorism50/unresolu.htm
Roughly 1 in 10 UN resolutions against Isreal that more than most of the 160 odd other countries put together. And judging by the number they have complied with you could nearly forgive Iran and Iraq for thinking that they could get away with the same % of comliance. Oddly enough the truism about democracies not waging war on each other is more accurate if you don't include UK, US, Isreal and India.

From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity..

<cough> we're still Irish despite 800 years of foreign occupation and massive emigration <cough>
This argument only works for the people (Arab/Jew/Gentile/Druze/etc) who lived in the country , it can't really be applied be those whose ancestors left there before America was discovered. Also try telling that to the Kurds.

Where, might I ask, do you suggest they are to be put?

Uganda ?

fly_agaric

RagShagBill wrote:

The fact that nothing gets done about it isn't because Israel has some sort of immunity against repurcussions, but that the UN is a weak, impotent and inefficient institution. Also, I think you'll find that a few Hamas suicide bombers claim to bomb Israel because of its actions. Surely that's not doing whatever it likes. Again though, I concede it does get away with a lot of abuses, but this is down to the impotence of the UN, not international immunity.

The reason nothing gets done about it is because a certain powerful country acts as Israel's guardian angel at the UN and intervenes whenever the Israelis are about to get a knuckle rap.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

edit: I also note several European countries' (esp. the UK) failure to grow any balls and actually vote for some of these resolutions instead of merely abstaining so as not to píss the US off.

mr_angry

I have to say, I think this statement has a surreal nature to it - what kind of 'politician' would actually come out with a statement such as this? It demonstrates a complete lack of any diplomatic or political skill by the man. In fact, he wont even bother to clarify whether he meant Israel should be 'wiped off the map' on an idealogical level, or through the use of force. However, the context of his statement ("a new wave of Palastinian fighters" etc.) would suggest the use of force.

Lets face it, in practical terms, any attempt by Iran to attack Israel would almost certainly result in their own complete and utter destruction. If you ask me, the Iranian president is trying to goad Israel into a pre-emptive strike which will act as a catalyst in bringing other Arab nations into a jihadic war. Unfortunately for him, its a pìss-poor attempt from a pìss-poor politician, and its very unlikely to work, thank God.

Suff

Plankmonkey wrote:

Israel needs to be taken down a notch or 2.

CORRECT! My way would be just.....Taken Down!

When the US & the UK start playing games on how Iraq, and now Syria are not complying with the UN on some elements of ONE resolution
how could the world forget about the ENDLESS list of resolutions aginst Isreal?? Isreal IGNORED EACH ONE! did anyone condem? no but when Arabs say the "NO" they get called Anti Semetic! now that's Bull****.

here's the LIST

Snickers Man

Iran getting nuclear weapons would probably be the biggest guarantee of a peaceful Middle East.

After all, America never invaded the Soviet Union or China because it knew they had nuclear weapons.

It did invade Iraq and Afghanistan because it knew they didn't. Whatever about the rhetoric.

You don't nuke a nuke power. They'll only nuke you back. Iran ain't going to throw nukes at Israel for exactly the same reason. I mean, they might be medieval but they;re not stupid.

Zombrex

whiskeyman wrote:

Can't believe no one commented thus far.
Not since WW2 has a country leader made such a statement.
Scary stuff!

Actually the leaders of Iran make these kinda comments all the time, which are largely ignored by the Iranian people.

This is hardly a declarartion of war by Iran .. it was simply an act to appeal to hard liners in Iran and the wider Arab worlds. In the west it would be similar to Gerry Adams saying "They haven't gone away you know", or Ann Colter saying "We should kill there leaders and convert them all to Christianity"

I don't know why people think the Iran government would employ the same "spin" and political correctness style PR as a government like Bush or Blairs. For a start, they really don't need to, they know the US or the UK aren't going to take a statement like this that seriously so they can mouth off all they like. As an act of defience against the real pressure being put on Iran by the west it is a bit like a child shouting "I wish you were dead" at their parents.

Zebra3

RagShagBill wrote:

The presence of the Jews has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was stating that from the time of the Jews all the way up to British occupation, there was no Palestinian state. Thus, debunking PlankMonkey's claim that the Jews obilterated a nation.

RSB,

'State' and 'nation' are two different things.

lazydaisy

[QUOTE=Capt'n Midnight
<cough> we're still Irish despite 800 years of foreign occupation and massive emigration <cough>

Actually a lot of Irish and her descendants have become American, Canadian, Australian and British due to the massive emmigration and 800 years of foreign occupation.

Snickers man - that's an excellent point. However remember that Cuba had missiles aimed at the US knowing full well that American had at the least an equitable arsenal at its disposal.

Suff

RagShagBill wrote:

The presence of the Jews has nothing to do with what I was saying. I was stating that from the time of the Jews all the way up to British occupation, there was no Palestinian state.

False!

Palastine was the name of the country, there were no state but the people and their land were called Palastine. these people are the right owners of that land, there are palastinian jews, christians and muslims.

Isreal is a modern colony based on Zionism.

PLEASE read history books before you make any statments, here's a book that might help you URL="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006383475/qid=1130859591/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-4384967-9183819"]GET THIS BOOK[/URL

RagShagBill wrote:

Thus, debunking PlankMonkey's claim that the Jews obilterated a nation.

Really???? Stealing and convescating lands, demolition of homes, Millions sent into exile and the Mass Murders...... are not obliterating a nation/people ???

What a silly statment to make :mad:

Suff

RagShagBill wrote:

In 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans.

When England Invided Ireland where there any distinct political entity ??? NO!
but the fact still remains that they have invaded a land that doesn not belong to them.
they belonged at that time to the Ottman Empire and during the war the British Invaded that land, established a mandate and then gave it to some Zionst party to establish a home for the jews.
But those Jews came from within Europe! so that's their home.

IMO... Europe didn't want them there so they ship them to the Middle East!

Remember one thing....the Middle East at that time was all Jewish they converted into Christianity then to Islam. one people!

Jews are not a race, I am so sick of this,....it's a religion not a Race!
it's like stating that christians or Muslims are a Race!

sceptre

Suff wrote:

Palastine was the name of the country, there were no state but the people and their land were called Palastine.

The formal application of the name "Palestine" to the entire region dates from about 140AD, though it had limited use by a number of Greek geographers around three hundred years before, followed by some of their Arab colleagues. Even then, finding a definite descendant of the original Philistines, after which the smaller region of Philistia was thitherto named after they first arrived around 1200BC, would have been rather difficult as they were pretty much wiped out by the Assyrians around 700BC. Now, keeping in mind that the Celts arrived into Ireland around then, I rather hope you've got some Irish blood that pre-dates their arrival if you'd like to lay claim to be part of this country using your own logic.

The term "Palestine" for the region became pretty much cemented in modern times with the establishment of the British Mandate of Palestine, encompassing modern-day Jordan and all the territory west of the Jordan river in 1917. And of course the term "Palestinian", which prior to 1948 had generally meant anyone living in the entire region regardless of religion ("Philistine" had been used to describe the Arab inhabitants from around the mid-nineteenth century) was generally applied to Arab inhabitants only from that date and pretty much formally applied to the same group fter the passing of the Palestinian National Covenant by the PLO in 1968, though the latter included any Jewish people in the region who were in place prior to the Zionist immigrations and their descendants. Now, given the origin of many of the current-day Palestinians and the origin of the modern-day Jews in the region, it's rather myopic of anyone to pull on the cloak of "we were here first, sod off". Of course outside the area where fewer people have a specific and useful idea of the actual origin of people in the area, that mantra has become more common, which is rather unfortunate as more than a little learning would mean that we'd all be able to have a more coherent discussion.

Now, to move on to one of your smaller point, the British didn't give anything in the region to anyone, Zionist or otherwise. The declaration of the state of Israel was made unilaterally. For someone who pleads with people to educate themselves on the topic, you've either got a pretty piss-poor awareness of some of the finer points or you're ignoring historical accuracy for the sake of drama, ironically doing what you're criticising people for, opresumably to add some ballast to whatever side of the big wail that you're on.

To say what I really wanted to say: playing the "this land is their land, from dirty desert to salty ocean... because they were there first DAMMIT" record on behalf of either side of the disagreement isn't worth a fiddler's fanny as there's been enough outside breeding, house moving, emigration, immigration, religion-changing, locals being swallowed up nito other countries and surrendering that for the most part there's a slightly tenuous ethnic link for a large whack of the population to early Canaanite history in any case so what should be more important is that two groups of neighbours settled in the same area at some point over time, currently live there and really should get on better. Because they've both been bad neighbours and they can both waste their time pointing the finger till the cows die of neglect. Hey, like somewhere else we know.


edit: Now, slightly aside, if anyone's got any comments on Iran and their president and what he likes to say when he knows people are watching, there's still loads of room.