irish intern in arafats gaff

king of fifa

heard on red fm yesterday (no i dont understand that ad either) that an irish intern has decided to stay in arafats compound while the jews continue to try to bomb him out of it .an american who was there also decided that it wasn't really his cup of tea and legged it.i was just wondering if anyone else out there felt as proud as i did that this girl is continuing irelands long tradition of standing up to an opressor. and no i am not sitting here wearing a green and white hooped shirt and i have no tatoos talking about our day coming, but i do have a rebel streak in me

king of fifa

27 hits and no reply.did i strike a cord with anyone????????? or is it more of a case of what ian richardson said in "House of Cards" - "you might very well think that , I however couldn't possibly comment"........................

gandalf

Yes fair play to her. However I would refrain from using the general term Jews in describing the Israeli Government and IDF activities, there are plenty of Jewish people who are against Arial Sherons actions.

Gandalf.

yellum

The line between bravery and stupidity is sometimes blurred. Hope she has ear protectors.

ReefBreak

I think she's very naive. I've heard the term used on the radio that she was one of the "Peace Activists". At the moment, I don't believe anyone protecting Arafat can be considered a "Peace Activist" - especially considering his total inaction concerning the suicide bombers. How many innocent Isreali citizens have been murdered in the last week? And please, don't reply with "yes, but many innocent Palestinians have been killed over the last eighteen months?" I know how many, and I know Sharon is to blame for that, but I wouldn't consider anyone protecting him to be a "Peace Activist" either.

handyandy

Reefbreak, what do you think of the Israeli army stopping and searching ambulances and shooting / shooting at identified journalists.

While the above are not quite 'protecting' Arafat, the Israeli army seems to be very anxious to keep neutral parties 'out of the way'.

dathi1

Na..Reef is one of the usual "I'm so neutral I can blame everybody" brigade. Wow way too go Reef!

Sand

Im still wondering why she should be honoured, and by which state? Shes done nothing for Ireland, and her association with a regime which seems to go with mob justice when not being at best indifferent to terrorism isnt exactly heroic.

As for Reefs point of view: While Daiti1 is right thats its not quite as "sophisticated" as the "Neo-Nazi Israelis vs Oppressed Palestinians desperately fighting back with stones and suicide bombs" view, it is a tad more realistic

king of fifa

no one said she should be hounoured;but if you want to know which state should honour her it should be any state that is opposed to genicide.so that means every state in the EU if you take milosovic a case example of someone who drove people off their land and needlessly murdered 1000's.

Sand

King of Fifa 03-04-2002 1:12am

no one said she should be hounoured;

King of Fifa 01-04-2002 4:27am On the "Israeli forces enter Arafat's HQ" thread

did anyone hear that there is a irish intern STAYING in arafats compound while her american compatriot has buggered off home.this women should be declared a hero of the state.

Uhm someone did. You, unless Im very much mistaken.

Blade

Originally posted by Sand
Im still wondering why she should be honoured, and by which state? Shes done nothing for Ireland, and her association with a regime which seems to go with mob justice when not being at best indifferent to terrorism isnt exactly heroic.

Regime?? I thought Arafat was democratically elected by his people? And no I don't think she should be honoured either, shes done nothing amazing for Ireland itself. I respect what shes doin but she doesn't deserve a medal

king of fifa

sand i didn't know that we gave away titles like honourary heros of the state.i've heard of people getting freedom of the state but nothing quite like an honourary hero; apart from jack charlton in 1990..........................

ReefBreak

Originally posted by dathi1
Na..Reef is one of the usual "I'm so neutral I can blame everybody" brigade. Wow way too go Reef!

This, of course, is the exact response I'd expect from the hordes of uninformed right-on terrorist-supporters in Ireland.

Israel bullets murders civilians: "A nazi-like regime! Sharon is the new Hitler!"
Hamas bombs murders civilians: "They have a right to defend themselves!"

I can only assume you coming out with the same language during the 80s and 90s after each IRA atrocity...
A bomb in Enniskillen murders 14 people: "They have a right to defend themselves!"

I'm so neutral I can blame everybody

It's ironic Dathi1, what's your stance on Irish neutrality? Personally, I think it's a cowardly and easy way onto the moral high-ground - I don't agree with it. Or are you the type that's down with the banner-waving crowd the moment any mention of compromising Irish neutrality is discussed? Think about it.

dathi1

Hamas bombs murders civilians: "They have a right to defend themselves!"

You haven't experienced (nor have I) what its like to have your relatives rolled over by tanks on Illegally occupied territory. So how would you react? I don't know how I would but I wouldn't rush to judgement on others.

what's your stance on Irish neutrality?

NATO No! The right of people to defend themselves against foreign aggression and ILLEGAL occupation (i.e.: Golan heights, Sheba Farms, West Bank, East Jerusalem: YES. European Defence force? haven't made up my mind yet.

ReefBreak

I also agree that the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves.

However, putting a bomb in a café/supermarket/bus and blowing limbs off unarmed and innocent civilians is not defending yourself. It's the actions of murderous terrorists - plain and simple. And if that opinion means I'm "one of the usual 'I'm so neutral I can blame everybody' brigade": well, I'll just have to live with it. And so will everyone else that opposed (R)IRA terrorism in the 80s/90s or Hamas terrorism today.

bugler

Come along now people, if we can just draw a distinction between Hamas activists and other Palestinians then theres no need for this bickering. Hamas are not universally supported, therefore to refer to Palestinian resistance as being completely the domain of Hamas/Islamic Jihad etc is erroneous. The bombing of civilian areas and targets by Palestinian militants is reprehensible, and the same can be said of Israels' reckless use of heavy weaponry in residential areas. There is nothing wrong with Palestinians using force against military targets in the occupied territories, they are entitled to forcefully resist occupation under international law. As was the case after sept 11 however, reactionary "civilised" people keep ignoring when someone explains or understands actions as opposed to justifying them. The overwhelming majority of people are opposed to the bombing of women and children and civilians in Israel, but they can understand why it occurs.

Gargoyle

But do the overwhelming majority of people also understand why Israel does not want to withdraw back to the pre-1967 borders, even if they believe that is what should happen?

Sharkey

Originally posted by bugler
...The bombing of civilian areas and targets by Palestinian militants is reprehensible, and the same can be said of Israels' reckless use of heavy weaponry in residential areas. There is nothing wrong with Palestinians using force against military targets in the occupied territories, they are entitled to forcefully resist occupation under international law. ...

You seem to be saying that it is fine for the Palestinians (including those terrorist among them) to use force against military targets, but somehow wrong for the Israeli military to use the appropriate weapons to minimize their losses against Palestinians who are shooting at them.

Perhaps the Israelis should use cushy pillows and/or strong wording to remove the terrorists, but frankly I don't think that would suffice.

gandalf

So Sharkey your condoning using Bulldozers to knock houses down with innocent people in them because the IDF may get a terrorist ?

How about the wife and children of a terrorist are they a legitimate target in your eyes ?

No matter what way you try and colour it, the Isreali Government and the IDF are carrying on like terrorists themselves only they are worse. They are using weapons designed for full scale battle against mainly civilians, yes they may take out a terrorist but the vast majority of the dead on the Palestinian side are innocent civilians, or do you believe otherwise?

BTW I am not saying the majority of victims on the Isreali side are not innocents as well. But it is apparent that the current Isreali actions are a failure in they are not stopping these bombings but increasing the number of them.

Gandalf.

Sharkey

Originally posted by gandalf
So Sharkey your condoning using Bulldozers to knock houses down with innocent people in them because the IDF may get a terrorist ?

Gandalf, sometimes your ignorance and b.s. attitude flares like a beacon in the night.

I never said that I condone "using Bulldozers to knock houses down with innocent people" and you are a liar for stating that I did. Perhaps you should think before posting. Is this post too "uncivil" for your taste. I find lies highly uncivil as well as unethical.

Now pull your head from your behind and ask a legit question in a respectible manner and leave your b.s. elsewhere. Too bad DeVore doesn't require an ethical standard. You "moderators" are always harping for people to be civil -- best that you practice what you demand of others. Whine if you will to DeVore to have me banned, but you need to grow some semblance of an ethical center, rather than whine about how others might flame you every time you lie.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sharkey
You seem to be saying that it is fine for the Palestinians (including those terrorist among them) to use force against military targets, but somehow wrong for the Israeli military to use the appropriate weapons to minimize their losses against Palestinians who are shooting at them.

Despite your "cushy pillow" sarcasm, I think the point being made is that the Israeli's are not using appropriate weapons, appropriate tactics, or appropriate scale in their anti-terrorist activities.

Using gunships and other airborne artillery to pound the governmental infrastructure, which is situated in a civilian area will do absolutely nothing to stop Palestinian terrorism. These steps are designed only to destroy the Palestinian government and its official infrastructure. This is not about minimising losses - its shooting at one (possibly related) group because you cant see the group you actually want to shoot.

jc

gandalf

Sharkey theres no point in sending you a PM you didn't open the warning I sent to you a while ago. I will be banning you for that response above.

Anything I have stated there is fact.

Fact 1. Houses have been bulldozed and people killed in them, I was asking you if you felt this was just actions you didn't answer the question but became abusive.

Fact 2. The wife and children of a known Palestinian Activist/Terrorist were killed when Helicopter gunships opened up on a pickup truck around a month ago, 2 other children in another car were killed in that action as well I was asking you if that was justified?

If you can't engage in civil discussions then you have no place in here.

Gandalf.

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey


Despite your "cushy pillow" sarcasm, I think the point being made is that the Israeli's are not using appropriate weapons, appropriate tactics, or appropriate scale in their anti-terrorist activities.

jc

Simply, this is armed conflict, with Palestinian militants and terrorist co-mingling among their civilians -- and civilains who are abetting them and taking arms themselves. The entire idea of an "appropriate" weapon is absurd on its face. The idea of an armed conflict is to achieve military goals while suffering a minimal amount of loses to ones own.

Israel uses an incredible amount of restraint -- rubber bullets and other means that are not lethal when they can -- but don't asks soldiers to risk their lives when the most they can do is shoot rubber bullets.

Osama

Originally posted by Sharkey
Israel uses an incredible amount of restraint -- rubber bullets and other means that are not lethal when they can -- but don't asks soldiers to risk their lives when the most they can do is shoot rubber bullets.

Wow them rubber bullets and cushy pillows sure are killing a lot of innocent men, women and children, not to mention them ambulance drivers with that lovely red target on their vans.

mike65

I heard earlier that political correct socialist comic Jeremy Hardy
was caught up the todays seige and was spirited out by the British Consulate. I quite like Hardys style but this is just pure
one-upmanship.

Vanessa Redgraves' flying in I understand....

Mike.

Von

Originally posted by mike65
I heard earlier that political correct socialist comic Jeremy Hardy
was caught up the todays seige and was spirited out by the British Consulate. I quite like Hardys style but this is just pure
one-upmanship.

Vanessa Redgraves' flying in I understand....

Mike.

F-grade celebs like Redgrave and Hardy aren't going to be much help. The arabs need the big guns. So where is Bono? The globe's Official Dissident. We reckon he's still standing by waiting for white house approval to come out and say something devastatingly right on like "bombing pizza parlours is bad. And so is driving tanks over cars."

Maybe he's on the phone to his team of accountants who are busy trying to work out if it's at all possible to denounce each side controversially but still manage to increase U2 product sales significantly in those markets.

king of fifa

no one has answered the question i posed.

handyandy

Originally posted by gandalf
So Sharkey your condoning using Bulldozers to knock houses down with innocent people in them because the IDF may get a terrorist ?

Honestly Gandalf, you should have put a "?" at the end of that rhetorical question. Oh, you did.

Originally posted by Sharkey
Simply, this is armed conflict

Of a major power against armed civilians. Hmmm, fair fight (not!)

Originally posted by Sharkey
with Palestinian militants and terrorist co-mingling among their civilians -- and civilians who are abetting them and taking arms themselves.

Israel has a standing army of 180,000 (compare Ireland 11,000, USA c. 500,000). They called up 30,000 reservists in the last few weeks. More than 75% of the Israeli population (male and female) is or has been in military service (to the point that a guy I know of who went to Israel for 2 years for religious study, ended up being drafted and being sent to Beirut in 1982). Statistically, killing a group of Israelis will kill Israeli soldiers (I am not necessarily advocating this).

Originally posted by Sharkey
Israel uses an incredible amount of restraint -- rubber bullets and other means that are not lethal when they can -- but don't asks soldiers to risk their lives when the most they can do is shoot rubber bullets.

Soldiers in armoured vehicles firing live ammo -v- teenagers throwing rocks? Restraint?

bugler

Originally posted by Sharkey


Simply, this is armed conflict, with Palestinian militants and terrorist co-mingling among their civilians -- and civilains who are abetting them and taking arms themselves.

Right.So either you are implying one of two things. One, that all these ciivlians are actively collaborating with the terrorists, and therefore don't deserve any consideration as regards protection from force. Do you want to come out and say that all Palestinians support Hamas etc Sharkey? Did CNN tell you so?

Or two, that simply civilians who happen to be unfortunate enough to live in these areas (and remember Sharkey, they basically CANNOT leave) don't deserve any protection from Israeli force, even though they may not support Islamic extremists.

Sharkey, imagine if someone ran into your house with a shotgun, told you to sit down and shut up. This person had attacked the local garda station, and now there were armed gardai outside. Would you think the best solution in this case would be for the gardai to maybe get in touch with the ARW and get them to fire a few mortars at your house? Maybe throw some frag grenades in the windows? Pity we don't have any gunships eh?

The entire idea of an "appropriate" weapon is absurd on its face. The idea of an armed conflict is to achieve military goals while suffering a minimal amount of loses to ones own.

I see, so noone should pay any attention to the possible loss of innocent life.
"It's a war, everyones fair game! Don't mind that little baby, if his crying is distracting you just smash his head! Don't worry about evacuating that old peoples home, it COULD contain a sniper, just blow it up!" Its only full of jews/arabs/christians anyway"

Thankfully Sharkey, countries and organisations that disagree with you (at least at face value or more accurately to some degree) include most of the worlds governments and population, the UN, and even, I know-brace yourself, these countries' military forces. You're basically advocating genocide if it happens to help you win a war, or achieve your objectives.

Israel uses an incredible amount of restraint -- rubber bullets and other means that are not lethal when they can -- but don't asks soldiers to risk their lives when the most they can do is shoot rubber bullets.

Really? Do you really think so? Or would I be right in saying that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about? There's a shocker. Incredible amount of restraint? Presumably you're referring to Israeli soldiers only shooting at child stone throwers while they're alive? "No riddling of dead bodies here, we're showing restraint!" Tell me Sharkey, do you think that firing live rounds at children throwing stones is showing restraint? Is shooting at foriegn journalists without warning and with heavy machine guns showing restraint? Is blowing up cars and whole houses when the target is one man (just one, in a vehicle, or street, or house that could contain several, or dozens more) showing restraint? If you want to express an opinion fine, if you want to spread propaganda such as stating that the Israeli armed forces show "incredible restraint" when dealing with (potentially) dangerous situations then leave us in peace and frequent sites like this: www.honestreporting.com . You'll feel much better there in that type of company, they certainly won't point out your lies and propaganda when it comes to the army with possibly the loosest rules of engagement in the modern world.

But do the overwhelming majority of people also understand why Israel does not want to withdraw back to the pre-1967 borders, even if they believe that is what should happen?

I think they do, yes. I was watching interviews with Israeli reserve soldiers the other day. It included several "refuseniks" who will not serve in the occupied territories, as they can't participate in what they see as the "humiliation" of the Palestinian people, unfair collective punishment of the same people, not to mention the fact that they don't think they have any right to be there. More surprisingly however, was the opinion of many of those who were serving in the occupied territories, some of whom believed they were needed there right now, but in the long run they should not be present. Israel can claim that it needs to occupy these areas in order to protect itself, but ultimately this holds little water. Look at South Lebanon. Twenty years of occupation and for what? To run off back to Israel having lost many young Israeli lives? If it worked so well and was so effective then why did they leave? The same will eventually happen in the occupied territories. Unless Israel withdraws, and something is done about the settlements, and a viable Palestinian state is set up, there will be no peace for Israelis or Palestinians. The bottom line is that people do not think that Israel holding onto the occupied areas makes Israel safer, it's akin to throwing water on a chip pan fire. In theory the water should put out the flame, in practice...

DiscoStu

Israel uses an incredible amount of restraint -- rubber bullets and other means that are not lethal when they can -- but don't asks soldiers to risk their lives when the most they can do is shoot rubber bullets.

there is one image of this war which will i will always remember. it was near the start of the conflict. A camera-man caught a boy being shot dead by israeli soldiers. the boys father then ran out to protect him/retrive the body whatever. of course the man was also shot dead.

restraint my fcuking arse. what threat could a small boy with a few stones be to a soldier with an m16? how the hell can you justify murdering 2 gererations of a family.

Simply, this is armed conflict, with Palestinian militants and terrorist co-mingling among their civilians -- and civilains who are abetting them and taking arms themselves.

im not trying to sound like a "ra head" but what would your reaction be english soldiers entering a catholic area of say belfast, or even better crossing the border and basically started indicriminantly shooting because suspected terrorists were in the area? israel is a developed country with one of the most experienced armies in the world. there are rules of war which must be abided by. civilians are not legitimate targets no matter what the justification. but i guess that means nothing really when you elect a suspected war criminal as president.

one last question sharky. do you like george bush?

king of fifa

i was just wondering if anyone else out there felt as proud as i did that this girl is continuing irelands long tradition of standing up to an opressor.

THIS WAS THE QUESTION I POSED.THERE IS ENOUGH SPOUTING INACCURATE COMMENTS ON THE "CONFLICT" IN OTHER TREADS.READ AND RANT AWAY ON THOSE