The Israeli Response ...
d.m.@yahoo.com
will the other uniformed anti-Semite spastics on UKRM.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/yitzhakgoldstein/3171339026/sizes/o/>
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/yitzhakgoldstein/3171339024/sizes/o/>
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/yitzhakgoldstein/3171339020/sizes/o/>
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/yitzhakgoldstein/3171339012/sizes/o/>
Images received from a contact here in Paris.
The Israeli army discovered a tunnel being used to smuggle weapons and
explosives from Egypt into Gaza. The weapons were to be used to kill
Jews. Hebrew text accompanying these shots ..
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/yitzhakgoldstein/3171356292/sizes/o/>
Translation (apologies for errors): 'this is how the most moral army
on earth behaves. Instead of destroying the tunnel, we save those who
wanted to kill us. After sending weapons through, what is their
reward from the Israelis? Medical treatment, blankets, and tea.
Please remember how this differs from the fate of the three Israeli
soldiers who mistakenly ended up in Ramallah. That is what separates
us from the "Palestinians" [sic]'.
BORG
They shouldn't be in Palistine anyway. Zionist bastards.
ginge
>Instead of destroying the tunnel, we save those who
>wanted to kill us.
I thought you were French, not Israeli.
steve auvache
writes
>The Israeli army discovered a tunnel being used to smuggle weapons and
>explosives from Egypt into Gaza. The weapons were to be used to kill
>Jews.
I could be wrong in what I heard but there was yet another well fed grey
suit on the telebox the other night defending the current Global Zionist
Expansionist Plan who made the very valid point that the rockets fired
into Israel by Hamas killed and maimed whoever they landed on, jew and
gentile alike. Indiscriminately. So you can fuck right off with your
pro Zionish propaganda.
--
steve auvache
A Bloo one with built in safety features
ginge
>In article <loq4m49qjc6ovi49e...@4ax.com>,
>Here, Rob .. have some of these ... ' '
Why on earth would I need those?
I'm just curious, aren't you now slightly at odds, what with Sarkozy
going to Israel to try and broker peace. Siding with the Jews in
their show of force people isn't a very French stance, is it?
ginge
>In article <ut95m41kvbdivq20q...@4ax.com>,
> ginge <the.gin...@THISgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:56:02 +0100, des <d...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>Well, because I was citing. Quoting. You know, relating what someone
>else had translated. As in ...
Ahh I should have re-read your original post.. thats the trouble with
scan reading - I took it drectly as your view.
>> I'm just curious, aren't you now slightly at odds, what with Sarkozy
>> going to Israel to try and broker peace. Siding with the Jews in
>> their show of force people isn't a very French stance, is it?
>
>Is that a serious comment, or an attempt to capitalise on your former
>wittiness with 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' ?
I was being serious. On one hand you play the libertarian Frenchman,
enthusing over human rights, oposing death sentences and the like, but
on the other you come across as a crazy man, that would probably be
happy if the Jews reacted even more disproportionately and simply
started napalming Arabs wholesale.
Hog
> I was being serious. On one hand you play the libertarian Frenchman,
> enthusing over human rights, oposing death sentences and the like, but
> on the other you come across as a crazy man, that would probably be
> happy if the Jews reacted even more disproportionately and simply
> started napalming Arabs wholesale.
Napalm? They have thermonuclear weapons FFS
--
Hog
Hog
> this modern style of terrorism head on in a way the West has been to
> frightened to do.
I'm inclined to agree. The civvies are getting it in the neck but they voted
for Hamas so fuck them.
They are getting pretty much the same deal as the Chechens.
--
Hog
ogden
> As unpopular as it is the Israelis have been brave enough to confront
> this modern style of terrorism head on in a way the West has been to
> frightened to do.
The Israelis have learnt nothing from the rest of the War On Terror. It
didn't work. All it did was entrench resistance further. Look how well
we're still doing in Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban, and we've
been blowing them up for seven years now.
> I find it a bit rich that the same people who sanctioned the war on
> Iraq on the basis of 'intelligence' and by doing so condemned many
> hundreds of thousands of 'innocents' to death have being speaking out
> against the response in Gazza.
>
> IIRC Iraq's WMDs weren't landing randomly in the home counties.
It's stretching the truth a bit to compare Hamas's rockets with WMDs.
Maybe if the Israelis weren't actively condemning people to death in the
Gaza refugee camps there wouldn't be quite so many rockets landing in
Israel. Or do you reckon the Palestinians are just chucking them over
the fence out of boredom?
--
ogden
GSX-R750 K4
RGV250 VJ22
Hog
> undoing. It wasn't that long ago that civilian targets were an
> important part of destroying moral and turning the population against
> your enemy.
>
> Our post Geneva Convention society has no stomach for an old fashioned
> war.
True True.
If it wasn't for international pressure the Yids would have concocted a
final solution to the Palestinian problem years ago.
--
Hog
ogden
Voting for Fatah hadn't got them very far.
ogden
> ogden wrote:
>
> > Cane wrote:
> > > As unpopular as it is the Israelis have been brave enough to
> > > confront this modern style of terrorism head on in a way the West
> > > has been to frightened to do.
> >
> > The Israelis have learnt nothing from the rest of the War On Terror.
> > It didn't work. All it did was entrench resistance further. Look how
> > well we're still doing in Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban,
> > and we've been blowing them up for seven years now.
>
> believe the Israelis are trying a more aggressive approach for this
> very reason.
I'd like to think we learnt something from Dresden.
Charlie
"Cane" <cane...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6sgkr1F...@mid.individual.net...
> this modern style of terrorism head on in a way the West has been to
> frightened to do.
>
> Iraq on the basis of 'intelligence' and by doing so condemned many
> hundreds of thousands of 'innocents' to death have being speaking out
> against the response in Gazza.
>
> IIRC Iraq's WMDs weren't landing randomly in the home counties.
When even the Egyptian government tells Hamas bluntly that the suffering of
the civilian population is Hamas' own fault, because of the official
sanctioning of the rocket attacks, you have to see both sides. It doesn't
'excuse' the wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter, of course, but if the
Irish government were cheerfully funding rockets being lobbed into Ulster I
reckon the British government would get quite shirty. Yes, my sentiments
are pro-Palestinian, as they've had a consistently shitty deal (at the hands
of both Israel and the 'great powers') for >60 years, but in this instance I
suspend my knee-jerk reactions.
ogden
> ogden wrote:
>
> > I'd like to think we learnt something from Dresden.
>
>
> Take a look around you and I think you'll find that war is still rather
> horrible.
So horrible is good then? Cos it's only a few minutes ago you said...
> I think the obsession with 'collateral damage' and 'war via PR' is our
> undoing. It wasn't that long ago that civilian targets were an
> important part of destroying moral and turning the population against
> your enemy
--
ogden
>
> When even the Egyptian government tells Hamas bluntly that the suffering of
> the civilian population is Hamas' own fault, because of the official
> sanctioning of the rocket attacks, you have to see both sides. It doesn't
> 'excuse' the wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter, of course, but if the
> Irish government were cheerfully funding rockets being lobbed into Ulster I
> reckon the British government would get quite shirty.
There's no comparison to be made between the Republic of Ireland and
Gaza. The latter is the occupied territory, arguably more like Ulster.
So a better comparison would be Sinn Fein cheerfully funding bombs on
the mainland.
Oh. They did. How did we react to that again?
M J Carley
>I think the obsession with 'collateral damage' and 'war via PR' is
>our undoing. It wasn't that long ago that civilian targets were an
>important part of destroying moral and turning the population against
>your enemy.
At least as far as war between white folks goes, hammering civilian
targets is a twentieth century invention.
--
Differenza fra il rivoluzionaro e il cialtrone. Il rivoluzionario
rompe l'orologio e invece di presentarsi alle nove si presenta alle
nove meno cinque. Il cialtrone rompe l'orologio e si alza alle undici.
Michael Carley: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
Adrian
were saying:
>>I think the obsession with 'collateral damage' and 'war via PR' is our
>>undoing. It wasn't that long ago that civilian targets were an important
>>part of destroying moral and turning the population against your enemy.
> At least as far as war between white folks goes, hammering civilian
> targets is a twentieth century invention.
Really?
Weren't the Vikings "white", then? Or the Goths?
Charlie
"ogden" <og...@pre.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.23cd3eb7d...@reader.motzarella.org...
I think the comparison is entirely valid. If government A sanctions the
daily firing of rockets at civilians across a state border, then sooner or
later government B is going to take very drastic punitive action. It's
horrible, it's indiscriminate (just like the Hamas rockets) and I don't say
that it's 'right', but it's understandable. 'We' didn't react in that
manner because, well, when all said and done, it must be conceded that the
Israelis are a far more primitive people than 'us'. <Runs away and hides
behind tree>
ogden
No, just bored.
Jim
M J Carley <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
>In the referenced article, "Cane" <cane...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>I think the obsession with 'collateral damage' and 'war via PR' is
>>our undoing. It wasn't that long ago that civilian targets were an
>>important part of destroying moral and turning the population against
>>your enemy.
>
>At least as far as war between white folks goes, hammering civilian
>targets is a twentieth century invention.
Any of the peoples who were conquested by the Romans might disagree with
you. In those times it was common to burn towns and villages or
slaughter the inhabitants. And there have been many acts of terrorism
long before we attached that name to it. I don't think there's some lost
era of moral behaviour as you suggest.
I guess you're talking about the modern ability to project power behind
the lines of war though - for instance the activities of Bomber Command
in WWII.
Spete
"des" <d...@yahoo.fr> schreef in bericht
news:des-72DB7E.1...@news.free.fr...
> In article <6sgkr1F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Cane" <cane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hog wrote:
>>
>> > > I was being serious. On one hand you play the libertarian
>> > > Frenchman, enthusing over human rights, oposing death sentences and
>> > > the like, but on the other you come across as a crazy man, that
>> > > would probably be happy if the Jews reacted even more
>> > > disproportionately and simply started napalming Arabs wholesale.
>> >
>> > Napalm? They have thermonuclear weapons FFS
>>
>> As unpopular as it is the Israelis have been brave enough to confront
>> this modern style of terrorism head on in a way the West has been to
>> frightened to do.
>>
>> I find it a bit rich that the same people who sanctioned the war on
>> Iraq on the basis of 'intelligence' and by doing so condemned many
>> hundreds of thousands of 'innocents' to death have being speaking out
>> against the response in Gazza.
>>
>> IIRC Iraq's WMDs weren't landing randomly in the home counties.
>
Not entirely my dear jew:
prawn
> The _big_ difference is that Israel is not now and never has been (well,
> not for =~ 2,500 years give or take) expansionist.
Israel fas founded ca. 1947, you mong.
--
p BotM#1 LotR#9
Colin Irvine
>ogden wrote:
>
>> Cane wrote:
>> > As unpopular as it is the Israelis have been brave enough to
>> > confront this modern style of terrorism head on in a way the West
>> > has been to frightened to do.
>>
>> The Israelis have learnt nothing from the rest of the War On Terror.
>> It didn't work. All it did was entrench resistance further. Look how
>> well we're still doing in Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban,
>> and we've been blowing them up for seven years now.
>
>You're missing my point. The 'War On Terror' hasn't worked and won't. I
>believe the Israelis are trying a more aggressive approach for this
>very reason.
So in your opinion should the Americans have pursued, or be pursuing,
their "War on Terror" more aggressively?
--
Colin Irvine
ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
Ace
>Are you being purposely dim?
You don't think it just comes naturally then?
M J Carley
>> At least as far as war between white folks goes, hammering civilian
>> targets is a twentieth century invention.
>*boggle!*
If you believe wikipedia, casualty figures are:
Military Civilian
Second world war: 25 million 47 million
First world war: 9.7 million 6.8 million
US Civil war: 620 000 380 000
Napoleonic wars: 2.5 million 1.0 million (including
French colonies)
Most civilian deaths up to the twentieth century were caused by famine
or disease rather than by deliberately wiping out whole cities.
steve auvache
<og...@pre.org> writes
>Cane wrote:
>> As unpopular as it is the Israelis have been brave enough to confront
>> this modern style of terrorism head on in a way the West has been to
>> frightened to do.
>
>The Israelis have learnt nothing from the rest of the War On Terror. It
>didn't work. All it did was entrench resistance further. Look how well
>we're still doing in Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban, and we've
>been blowing them up for seven years now.
>
>
>> Iraq on the basis of 'intelligence' and by doing so condemned many
>> hundreds of thousands of 'innocents' to death have being speaking out
>> against the response in Gazza.
>>
>> IIRC Iraq's WMDs weren't landing randomly in the home counties.
>
In the sense that a Hamas rocket is a real and present danger whereas
the WMD were made up in a smoke filled room in hollywood?
--
steve auvache
A Bloo one with built in safety features
prawn
> In article <0lpb36-...@prawn.mine.nu>,
> The state of Israel was founded in 1948. I was referring to 'Israel'.
> Which is why I did not precede the word with 'the state of'.
>
So explain to me how something that doesn't exist can have expansionist
policies.
--
p BotM#1 LotR#9
Ace
>In the referenced article, "Cane" <cane...@gmail.com> writes:
>>M J Carley wrote:
>
>>> At least as far as war between white folks goes, hammering civilian
>>> targets is a twentieth century invention.
>
>>*boggle!*
>
>If you believe wikipedia, casualty figures are:
>
> Military Civilian
>Second world war: 25 million 47 million
>First world war: 9.7 million 6.8 million
>US Civil war: 620 000 380 000
>Napoleonic wars: 2.5 million 1.0 million (including
> French colonies)
All that these figures show is that the scale of warfare has changed
over the last few hundred years, and that in 'modern' times we've
become much more able to measure non-direct casualties. 'All-out' war
against entire populations, together with the ideas that we'd now call
'ethnic cleansing' was the norm in parts of Europe for much of the
last 2000 years.
>Most civilian deaths up to the twentieth century were caused by famine
>or disease rather than by deliberately wiping out whole cities.
But much of the famine and related disease was a result of deliberate
pillage & burn activities, effectively targetting the civilian
population in an effort to deprive the military of supplies, and to
subjugate the civilians to stop them supporting their feudal lords.
Charlie
"M J Carley" <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:KD1r9x.M...@bath.ac.uk...
> In the referenced article, "Cane" <cane...@gmail.com> writes:
>>M J Carley wrote:
>
>>> At least as far as war between white folks goes, hammering civilian
>>> targets is a twentieth century invention.
>
>>*boggle!*
>
> If you believe wikipedia, casualty figures are:
>
> Military Civilian
> Second world war: 25 million 47 million
> First world war: 9.7 million 6.8 million
> US Civil war: 620 000 380 000
> Napoleonic wars: 2.5 million 1.0 million (including
> French colonies)
>
> Most civilian deaths up to the twentieth century were caused by famine
> or disease rather than by deliberately wiping out whole cities.
I found your figure for civilian deaths in WW1 to be quite implausible, and
checked the wikipedia entry. It does state that most of the civilian deaths
were attributable to famine, and also includes the Turkish genocide against
the Armenians. That episode alone accounted for 1.0-1.5m of the deaths.
So, it would surely be more accurate to state that 'most civilian deaths up
to WW2 were caused by famine or disease'. It was only the availability of
deliberate, efficient, long-range, saturation bombing and missiles, from the
Spanish Civil War onwards, that cranked up the direct death rate 'at home'.
Scraggy
> ginge wrote:
>
>> I was being serious. On one hand you play the libertarian Frenchman,
>> enthusing over human rights, oposing death sentences and the like,
>> but on the other you come across as a crazy man, that would probably
>> be happy if the Jews reacted even more disproportionately and simply
>> started napalming Arabs wholesale.
>
> Napalm? They have thermonuclear weapons FFS
Do keep up, WP is apparently the weapon of choice ATM. Pretty isn't it?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5447590.ece?&EMC-Bltn=FGNE1A
Pretty isn't it?
--
I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as
members. Groucho Marx
M J Carley
>On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:15:33 GMT, ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote:
>> Military Civilian
>>Second world war: 25 million 47 million
>>First world war: 9.7 million 6.8 million
>>US Civil war: 620 000 380 000
>>Napoleonic wars: 2.5 million 1.0 million (including
>> French colonies)
>All that these figures show is that the scale of warfare has changed
>over the last few hundred years, and that in 'modern' times we've
>become much more able to measure non-direct casualties.
Does it? The figures show a shift from a majority of deaths being
military to a majority of deaths being civilian. If you believe that
is because of better measurements, make your argument.
>'All-out' war against entire populations, together with the ideas
>that we'd now call 'ethnic cleansing' was the norm in parts of Europe
>for much of the last 2000 years.
Off hand, I cannot think of a major region of Europe that was
ethnically cleansed in the last two thousand years. Any examples?
ogden
I'm not sure my spudgun would reach Golders Green from here.
Ace
>In the referenced article, Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> writes:
>>'All-out' war against entire populations, together with the ideas
>>that we'd now call 'ethnic cleansing' was the norm in parts of Europe
>>for much of the last 2000 years.
>
>Off hand, I cannot think of a major region of Europe that was
>ethnically cleansed in the last two thousand years. Any examples?
The vast tribal migrations towards the west over a thousand years or
more post-roman times were just economically-grounded, then? You don't
think the indigenous tribes were running away from annihalation at the
hands of the eastern invaders?
Ace
>M J Carley wrote:
>
>> >> At least as far as war between white folks goes, hammering civilian
>> >> targets is a twentieth century invention.
>>
>> > *boggle!*
>>
>> If you believe wikipedia, casualty figures are:
>
>Oh okay. I'll just wait until some more 'facts' are added to this page
>and then present it as my proof.
<types furiously>
Ace
>What about a Spud Missile?
Ba-doom *tish*.
M J Carley
>On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:41:43 GMT, ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote:
>
>>In the referenced article, Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> writes:
>
>>>'All-out' war against entire populations, together with the ideas
>>>that we'd now call 'ethnic cleansing' was the norm in parts of Europe
>>>for much of the last 2000 years.
>>
>>Off hand, I cannot think of a major region of Europe that was
>>ethnically cleansed in the last two thousand years. Any examples?
>
>The vast tribal migrations towards the west over a thousand years or
>more post-roman times were just economically-grounded, then? You don't
>think the indigenous tribes were running away from annihalation at the
>hands of the eastern invaders?
So you missed the reference to `white folks' in the original post?
steve auvache
<nos...@all.ta> writes
>the Turkish genocide against
>the Armenians.
Which we all know now is a total and complete fabrication by those who
are opposed to allowing a muslim state into our EU.
>So, it would surely be more accurate to state that 'most civilian deaths up
>to WW2 were caused by famine or disease'.
Especially when it is noted that The Great Flu Pandemic which followed
WW1 is said to have claimed more lives than the war itself and every
last one of those fuckers was a civilian.
steve auvache
mine.nu> writes
I give you brains and an unemployed merkin president. I rest my case.
Tim
<ens...@bath.ac.uk> writes
>In the referenced article, "Cane" <cane...@gmail.com> writes:
>>M J Carley wrote:
>
>>> At least as far as war between white folks goes, hammering civilian
>>> targets is a twentieth century invention.
>
>>*boggle!*
>
>If you believe wikipedia, casualty figures are:
>
> Military Civilian
>Second world war: 25 million 47 million
>First world war: 9.7 million 6.8 million
>US Civil war: 620 000 380 000
>Napoleonic wars: 2.5 million 1.0 million (including
> French colonies)
>
>Most civilian deaths up to the twentieth century were caused by famine
>or disease rather than by deliberately wiping out whole cities.
Isn't "Uncle Joe" supposed to be responsible for the demise of 60
million in the old "CCCP", or does my memory fail me?
--
Tim
Ace
>In the referenced article, Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> writes:
>>On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:41:43 GMT, ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote:
>>
>>>In the referenced article, Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> writes:
>>
>>>>'All-out' war against entire populations, together with the ideas
>>>>that we'd now call 'ethnic cleansing' was the norm in parts of Europe
>>>>for much of the last 2000 years.
>>>
>>>Off hand, I cannot think of a major region of Europe that was
>>>ethnically cleansed in the last two thousand years. Any examples?
>>
>>The vast tribal migrations towards the west over a thousand years or
>>more post-roman times were just economically-grounded, then? You don't
>>think the indigenous tribes were running away from annihalation at the
>>hands of the eastern invaders?
>
>So you missed the reference to `white folks' in the original post?
You don't class the huns et al as 'white'? That's racist, that is. OK,
they, specifically, were perhaps slightly yellow, although that's
disputed, but in any case much of the work was done by other displaced
tribes, having a domino effect across europe, and many of them
continued the work started by their eastern neighbours.
vulgarandmischevious
>Maybe if the Israelis weren't actively condemning people to death in the
>Gaza refugee camps there wouldn't be quite so many rockets landing in
>Israel
The continuing - and expanding - occupation of Palestinian land is
also another bone of contention.
M J Carley
Continued what work: killing people or settling on their land? The
genetic evidence is that modern Europeans are still largely descended
from the Europeans of millenia ago.
ogden
Oh, sure, but lets not forget that land was taken in the 67 war which,
for once, wasn't started by Israel. Almost fair game.
Ace
>In the referenced article, Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> writes:
>>On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:01:30 GMT, ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote:
>
>>>So you missed the reference to `white folks' in the original post?
>
>>You don't class the huns et al as 'white'? That's racist, that
>>is. OK, they, specifically, were perhaps slightly yellow, although
>>that's disputed, but in any case much of the work was done by other
>>displaced tribes, having a domino effect across europe, and many of
>>them continued the work started by their eastern neighbours.
>
>Continued what work: killing people or settling on their land?
Yes.
>The
>genetic evidence is that modern Europeans are still largely descended
>from the Europeans of millenia ago.
So? That's only evidence that they didn't succeed in wiping out the
indigenous populations, not that they didn't kill civilians, which is
what you were trying to argue up there^^^.
ginge
>What you call 'the West Bank' was Jordanian. Gaza was controlled by
>Egypt.
>
>The 'Palestinians' have never had any land. How can one steal
>something from someone who does not lawfully possess it?
This might be a daft question but why do Israel
police/block/restrict/(bomb tunnels on) the border with Egypt? Isn't
that something Egypt should be responsible for, or are they just
playing Switzerland in this?
M J Carley
But I didn't say that no civilians were killed; I said that mass
attacks on civilian targets are a twentieth century invention.
platypus
> Hog wrote:
>> ginge wrote:
>>
>>> I was being serious. On one hand you play the libertarian
>>> Frenchman, enthusing over human rights, oposing death sentences and
>>> the like, but on the other you come across as a crazy man, that
>>> would probably be happy if the Jews reacted even more
>>> disproportionately and simply started napalming Arabs wholesale.
>>
>> Napalm? They have thermonuclear weapons FFS
>
>
> Do keep up, WP is apparently the weapon of choice ATM. Pretty isn't
> it?
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5447590.ece?&EMC-Bltn=FGNE1A
>
> Pretty isn't it?
Yeah, but it's not phosphorus, is it?
Champ
>> > Cane wrote:
>> > > As unpopular as it is the Israelis have been brave enough to
>> > > confront this modern style of terrorism head on in a way the West
>> > > has been to frightened to do.
>> >
>> > The Israelis have learnt nothing from the rest of the War On Terror.
>> > It didn't work. All it did was entrench resistance further. Look how
>> > well we're still doing in Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban,
>> > and we've been blowing them up for seven years now.
>>
>> You're missing my point. The 'War On Terror' hasn't worked and won't. I
>> believe the Israelis are trying a more aggressive approach for this
>> very reason.
>
>I'd like to think we learnt something from Dresden.
I think Warsaw might be a more appropriate comparison - herd people
together, put a wall round them, then bomb them.
--
Champ
What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger
ZX10R | GPz750turbo | GSX-R600 racer (for sale) | ZX10R racer (broken)
neal at champ dot org dot uk
ogden
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:52:55 -0000, ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
>
> >> > Cane wrote:
> >> > > As unpopular as it is the Israelis have been brave enough to
> >> > > confront this modern style of terrorism head on in a way the West
> >> > > has been to frightened to do.
> >> >
> >> > The Israelis have learnt nothing from the rest of the War On Terror.
> >> > It didn't work. All it did was entrench resistance further. Look how
> >> > well we're still doing in Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban,
> >> > and we've been blowing them up for seven years now.
> >>
> >> You're missing my point. The 'War On Terror' hasn't worked and won't. I
> >> believe the Israelis are trying a more aggressive approach for this
> >> very reason.
> >
> >I'd like to think we learnt something from Dresden.
>
> I think Warsaw might be a more appropriate comparison - herd people
> together, put a wall round them, then bomb them.
Before you know it you have to send in Kurt Russell.
steve auvache
<ens...@bath.ac.uk> writes
>In the referenced article, Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> writes:
>>On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:42:34 GMT, ens...@bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote:
>
>>>The genetic evidence is that modern Europeans are still largely
>>>descended from the Europeans of millenia ago.
>
>>So? That's only evidence that they didn't succeed in wiping out the
>>indigenous populations, not that they didn't kill civilians, which is
>>what you were trying to argue up there^^^.
>
>But I didn't say that no civilians were killed; I said that mass
>attacks on civilian targets are a twentieth century invention.
We all know what you said that is not in dispute but you are still
wrong.
steve auvache
writes
>The 'Palestinians' have never had any land.
No good telling them to fuck off back to their own country then?
Tim
<cane...@gmail.com> writes
>Tim wrote:
>
>> > > > At least as far as war between white folks goes, hammering
>> > > > civilian targets is a twentieth century invention.
>> >
>> > > *boggle!*
>> >
>> > If you believe wikipedia, casualty figures are:
>> >
>> > Military Civilian
>> > Second world war: 25 million 47 million
>> > First world war: 9.7 million 6.8 million
>> > US Civil war: 620 000 380 000
>> > Napoleonic wars: 2.5 million 1.0 million (including
>> > French colonies)
>> >
>> > Most civilian deaths up to the twentieth century were caused by
>> > famine or disease rather than by deliberately wiping out whole
>> > cities.
>>
>> Isn't "Uncle Joe" supposed to be responsible for the demise of 60
>> million in the old "CCCP", or does my memory fail me?
>
>
I have a pack of "Top Trumps: Major World Atrocities" ;-)
--
Tim
Scraggy
Well it walks like a duck...
It *is* possible that it is not WP but RP, but we're talking semantics.Its
major consituent part certainly appears to be P
It presents some excellent medical opprtunities;
--
I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as
members. Groucho Marx
Champ
>> I have a pack of "Top Trumps: Major World Atrocities" ;-)
>
>bindun: http://newhumanist.org.uk/1915 [ws]
That is bloody brilliant!
Tim
>
Not quite what I was thinking of, but mildly amusing.
--
Tim
Charlie
"ogden" <og...@pre.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.23cd77967...@reader.motzarella.org...
Er, objection, m'Lud. The Israelis DID start it. The Syrians, Egyptians
and Jordanians were indeed manoeuvring their forces in a co-ordinated
manner, and would probably have launched an attack against Israel within a
few days; but only probably. They didn't, however, and Israel threw the
first punch by destroying their air forces on the ground. Bloody clever, it
was, and it meant that the ensuing land war could only end one way, and
quickly, since the Israelis had total command of the air. Nevertheless,
this did rather cut the moral ground from under Israel's feet when it came
to hanging onto land taken by conquest. UN resolutions ever since have
called for the return of the land occupied since 1967, and ISTR that it's a
fundamental tenet of international law (and the UN principles to which
Israel signed up) since WW2 that, in the case of conflict, borders must be
returned to where they were before the onset of hostilities. Thus,
strictly, Israel is a country in illegal occupation of foreign territory.
For all the good that it will do, of course.
des
"Charlie" <nos...@all.ta> wrote:
> "ogden" <og...@pre.org> wrote in message
> news:MPG.23cd77967...@reader.motzarella.org...
> > vulgarandmischevious wrote:
> >> ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Maybe if the Israelis weren't actively condemning people to death in the
> >> >Gaza refugee camps there wouldn't be quite so many rockets landing in
> >> >Israel
> >>
> >> The continuing - and expanding - occupation of Palestinian land is
> >> also another bone of contention.
> >
> > Oh, sure, but lets not forget that land was taken in the 67 war which,
> > for once, wasn't started by Israel. Almost fair game.
>
> Er, objection, m'Lud. The Israelis DID start it. The Syrians, Egyptians
> and Jordanians were indeed manoeuvring their forces in a co-ordinated
> manner, and would probably have launched an attack against Israel within a
> few days; but only probably. They didn't, however, and Israel threw the
> first punch by destroying their air forces on the ground.
Wrong. Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran to all vessels with Israeli
flags. Under International War, this is an act of war.
Further, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter does not oblige any
state to wait like a sitting duck to be attacked ..
'Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against
a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken
measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense
shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in
any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council
under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems
necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and
security'
Blocking civilian and military traffic in international waters, is a
bona fide act of aggression.
> Bloody clever, it
> was, and it meant that the ensuing land war could only end one way, and
> quickly, since the Israelis had total command of the air. Nevertheless,
> this did rather cut the moral ground from under Israel's feet when it came
> to hanging onto land taken by conquest.
See above. Your entire point stems from a false premise.
> UN resolutions ever since have
> called for the return of the land occupied since 1967,
Judea and Samaria were controlled by Jordan. The resolutions, supported
by a vehemently anti-Semitic UN, call for the 'return' of land to people
who never owned it to begin with.
> and ISTR that it's a
> fundamental tenet of international law (and the UN principles to which
> Israel signed up) since WW2 that, in the case of conflict, borders must be
> returned to where they were before the onset of hostilities.
> Thus,
> strictly, Israel is a country in illegal occupation of foreign territory.
>
> For all the good that it will do, of course.
The following will stand as a shattering rebuttal to the above
uninformed cack, which of course you'll claim not to have read, thus
allowing you to trot out the same uninformed cack, next time the issue
is raised. No matter... it's all good fun, isn't it?
<fx: rolls up sleeves ...>
Resolution 242 (and later, 338) were enacted under Chapter VI of the UN
Charter, and as such, are non-binding on combattant states. The
Security Council has power to enact binding decisions under Chapter VII.
The Security Council did _not_ enact those two Resolutions. They are
thus non-binding and failing to observe such Resolutions will not be
construed to constitute a breach of public international law.
Further, the peace treaty with Jordan (who, lest you forget, controlled
'the West Bank' prior to the 1967 war) fixed the current borders, and no
mention was made of apportioning that land to the 'Palestinians'. Prior
to the Six-Day War, Jordan had (unlawfully) occupied Judea and Samaria
and Egypt had controlled the Gaza Strip (again, unlawfully). The
difference is that Egypt never laid any claim to Gaza, whereas Jordan
intended to annex 'the West Bank'. The annexation of Judea and Samaria
by Jordan would have been unlawful under the terms of the Geneva
Convention, and as such, when Israel seized those lands after the 1967
conflict, there was nothing 'unlawful' about their action under either
the terms of the IV Geneva Convention, nor under those of the 1899 and
1907 Hague Conventions.
In 1988, King Hussein of Jordan relinquished all legal and/or
administrative claims to Judea and Samaria. Nowhere in Resolutions 242
or 338 (and unlike most of the fucking uneducated apes on UKRM, I've
read both) make no mention whatsoever of the establishment of a
'Palestinian state' in Judea and Samaria (or, for that matter, in the
Gaza Strip, but that's for another post). Indeed, the word
'Palestinian' doesn't appear anywhere in 242. Here it is, in English,
in its entirety ...
<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242>
Find me the word 'Palestinian' in there.
Here's Resolution 338 ...
<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_338>
Again, nowhere are 'the Palestinians' mentioned.
Now we come to Israel's obligations to those territories that it
controls, and these are in the main delimited by Article 49 of the IV
Geneva Protocol. This Protocol is binding on states only; not on
citizens, that is, it does not prevent individual citizens from buying
land in 'occupied' territory. Additionally, Israel is fully entitled
under the same Protocol, to ensure its security needs by 'occupying'
certain portions of Judea and Samaria.
As I mentioned a few paragraphs ago, Jordan's proposed annexation of
Judea and Samaria was unlawful, and as such, Israel was not required to
apply any of the provisions of the above Protocols, nor that of any of
the Hague Regulations. But it did. Israel obeyed all appropriate laws
concerning 'occupation' of land, and at no time did it 'appropriate'
land except where needed to ensure its security which, I'll remind you
as frankly, you come across as being a bit dim, was perfectly within its
powers under Article 49 of the IV Geneva Protocol, as well as Article 46
of the Hague Regulations.
I could go on, but my point has been made. Under no reasonable
interpretation of public international law, can Israel be accused of
'illegal occupation' of any land in Judea and Samaria.
Now you be a good boy and pretend not to have read this. Just one
request, eh? Next time, make me work for it.
D.
--
des | 'what does it matter what he posts?'
http://www.jr.co.il/terror/israel/index.html
end the 'occupation': http://minilien.fr/a0k8xe
ukrm: 'where it's "cool" to be stupid!'
myths of islam: http://minilien.fr/a0j5qo
steve auvache
writes
>In article <_LCdnSViMuy-Av7U...@bt.com>,
> "Charlie" <nos...@all.ta> wrote:
>
>> "ogden" <og...@pre.org> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.23cd77967...@reader.motzarella.org...
>> > vulgarandmischevious wrote:
>> >> ogden <og...@pre.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Maybe if the Israelis weren't actively condemning people to death in the
>> >> >Gaza refugee camps there wouldn't be quite so many rockets landing in
>> >> >Israel
>> >>
>> >> The continuing - and expanding - occupation of Palestinian land is
>> >> also another bone of contention.
>> >
>> > Oh, sure, but lets not forget that land was taken in the 67 war which,
>> > for once, wasn't started by Israel. Almost fair game.
>>
>> Er, objection, m'Lud. The Israelis DID start it. The Syrians, Egyptians
>> and Jordanians were indeed manoeuvring their forces in a co-ordinated
>> manner, and would probably have launched an attack against Israel within a
>> few days; but only probably. They didn't, however, and Israel threw the
>> first punch by destroying their air forces on the ground.
>
>Wrong. Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran to all vessels with Israeli
>flags. Under International War, this is an act of war.
Go, go Egypt.
Andy Bonwick
wrote:
snip>
>If it wasn't for international pressure the Yids would have concocted a
>final solution to the Palestinian problem years ago.
They're not allowed to nuke the Arabs.
Andy Bonwick
snip>
>Off hand, I cannot think of a major region of Europe that was
>ethnically cleansed in the last two thousand years. Any examples?
Ethnic cleansing no but 'laying siege to a city isn't exactly a new
idea and that usually involved quite a few civilian deaths didn't it?
Andy Bonwick
>Cane wrote:
>> ogden wrote:
>>
>> > Cane wrote:
>> > > As unpopular as it is the Israelis have been brave enough to
>> > > confront this modern style of terrorism head on in a way the West
>> > > has been to frightened to do.
>> >
>> > The Israelis have learnt nothing from the rest of the War On Terror.
>> > It didn't work. All it did was entrench resistance further. Look how
>> > well we're still doing in Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban,
>> > and we've been blowing them up for seven years now.
>>
>> You're missing my point. The 'War On Terror' hasn't worked and won't. I
>> believe the Israelis are trying a more aggressive approach for this
>> very reason.
>
>I'd like to think we learnt something from Dresden.
Get your retaliation in first?
Simian
> ogden wrote:
>
> > Cane wrote:
> > > As unpopular as it is the Israelis have been brave enough to
> > > confront this modern style of terrorism head on in a way the West
> > > has been to frightened to do.
> >
> > The Israelis have learnt nothing from the rest of the War On Terror.
> > It didn't work. All it did was entrench resistance further. Look how
> > well we're still doing in Afghanistan against a resurgent Taliban,
> > and we've been blowing them up for seven years now.
>
> You're missing my point. The 'War On Terror' hasn't worked and won't.
> I believe the Israelis are trying a more aggressive approach for this
> very reason.
>
"The politics of failure have failed; we need to make them work again"