Jump to content
aberdeen-music

A handy state of affairs, the holocaust


Guest Neutral
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Jake Wifebeater
Still madness that an Israeli minister would even contemplate using that word considering it's connotations.

Standard practice, really. If anyone questions Israel's murderous rampage against Palestine, they remind us that they were holocaust victims.

Over 60 years ago.

:up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is appalling that the israelis went in and killed over 100 people, when so far 3 israelis have been killed by palestinian rocket attacks. Israel should be put under international sanctions until it stops being so barbaric and using excessive, disproportionate force. The month long "war" on lebanon was a prime example of this, all the while the west sits back and lets it go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standard practice, really. If anyone questions Israel's murderous rampage against Palestine, they remind us that they were holocaust victims.

Over 60 years ago.

:up:

But that's not what they were doing in this instance. This time the implication was that they'd inflict a holocaust on the Palestinian people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barak to hold meeting on legality of striking civilian areas in Gaza - Haaretz - Israel News

Defense Minister Ehud Barak will meet Monday with legal experts in the military and government to examine whether the Israel Defense Forces can legally target populated areas from which Qassam rockets are being fired at the western Negev.

During Sunday's cabinet meeting, Vice Premier Haim Ramon asked why the IDF was not directing massive fire at the areas from which Qassams are being launched.

"According to international law, you can do that," he said. "In the Second Lebanon War it was clear that if they shoot from within a village, we can fire on them even if the area is populated."

This is not the behaviour of a rational or civilised state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jake Wifebeater
But that's not what they were doing in this instance. This time the implication was that they'd inflict a holocaust on the Palestinian people.

Hmm, something about those who don't remember history end up repeating it comes to mind.

:up:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What isn't? Targetting populated areas?

I don't think it's as black and white as people make out - the Israelis have to show their people that they will defend them from attack, but they are fighting an invisible enemy. Targetting the areas that the rockets are being fired from seems like the only way to react to me, although they shouldn't be using such devastating, indisciminate air strikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What isn't? Targetting populated areas?

I don't think it's as black and white as people make out - the Israelis have to show their people that they will defend them from attack, but they are fighting an invisible enemy. Targetting the areas that the rockets are being fired from seems like the only way to react to me, although they shouldn't be using such devastating, indisciminate air strikes.

Getting lawyers in to make a legal case for dropping bombs on civilians is sick, whichever way you look at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting lawyers in to make a legal case for dropping bombs on civilians is sick, whichever way you look at it.

That's my point; they're not all civillians. I don't think the Israeli government want to kill civillians for the banter, they're just desperate to root out the militants. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the actions of the Israeli government, but I do think it's a bit easy to label them "sick" without considering the whole picture...

I'd say that the militants are just as much to blame, they're holing up in civillian enclaves purposefully - if the Israelis don't react then it's a sign of weakness, but if they do react then they kill innocents. It's a Catch 22, the militants have realised this and are happy exploiting their own people which is just a, if not more, "sick".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my point; they're not all civillians. I don't think the Israeli government want to kill civillians for the banter, they're just desperate to root out the militants. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the actions of the Israeli government, but I do think it's a bit easy to label them "sick" without considering the whole picture...

I'd say that the militants are just as much to blame, they're holing up in civillian enclaves purposefully - if the Israelis don't react then it's a sign of weakness, but if they do react then they kill innocents. It's a Catch 22, the militants have realised this and are happy exploiting their own people which is just a, if not more, "sick".

Do you think these militants hang out in a barracks or something? They have ordinary day to lives and live in neighbourhoods like anyone else. When the israelis bomb an entire block of houses to assasinate 1 militant, it is inexcusable.

Do you really think they are going to stay in the area right after theyve fired a rocket? Bombing the area it came from is just collective punishment, which is a war crime.

What the israelis are doing amounts to killing these innocent people just to save face, rather than act rationally and negotiate with hamas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Neutral

The Palestinians who are fighting are not terrorists a better term would be freedom fighters exactly the same as the northern alliance were when the taliban ruled Afghanistan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think these militants hang out in a barracks or something? They have ordinary day to lives and live in neighbourhoods like anyone else. When the israelis bomb an entire block of houses to assasinate 1 militant, it is inexcusable.

Do you really think they are going to stay in the area right after theyve fired a rocket? Bombing the area it came from is just collective punishment, which is a war crime.

What the israelis are doing amounts to killing these innocent people just to save face, rather than act rationally and negotiate with hamas.

That's exactly my point, it's hard because they're not fighting against an army - it's guerilla warfare and that is virtually impossible to fight against. You say that when "israelis bomb an entire block of houses to assasinate 1 militant" then that is unnaceptable, which is of course true. But I don't think they target civillian areas purposefully and I don't think they'd kill hundrerd of innocents for the sake of one militant. This article in Reuters - News | Africa - Reuters.com - estimates that 120 died in the past 5 days, of which half were civillians. Obviously, that is a very high number of civillian deaths, but what I'm trying to say is that the militants know exactly that their actions will provoke this sort of backlash and they know exactly that their own people will die as a result.

It's easy to throw phrases like "war crimes" around, but this is barely scratching the surface of the whole situation. Just to point out, the militants who kicked off this particular round of violence were firing rockets into civillian areas, and killing civillians themselves, so it's at least a little rich for them to point the finger completely at big, bad Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly my point, it's hard because they're not fighting against an army - it's guerilla warfare and that is virtually impossible to fight against.

Yeah exactly, rather than admit they cannot defeat hamas, or hezbollah for that matter, they would rather be more indiscriminate and kill more civilians. The israelis created the militants through their own actions, and their own unwillingness to have a rational dialogue, so it is entirely their own fault and I have no sympathy with them whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Palestinians who are fighting are not terrorists a better term would be freedom fighters exactly the same as the northern alliance were when the taliban ruled Afghanistan

Freedom Fighters? What a generalised, pishy, ignorant statement. You sound like Ronald Reagan, and that's just not a good thing.

The mujahideen were united when they rightly kicked the Soviets out of their country in 1992. But between 1992 and 1996, they were distinctly un-united as the mujahideen millitias turned on each other. During this time, the militants were responsible for thousands of civillian deaths, even openly attacking settlements simply for having an affiliation to a particular faction. Torture, rape and murder were daily events and the result was an utterly disastorous four years.

When the Taliban took over in an attempt to stabalise the country, the factions of the mujahideen in opposition to the move formed the UIF, or Northern Alliance. So the murderous militia of the post-Soviet era made up BOTH the Taliban and the UIF. Whilst the UIF did well to overthrow the tyrannous regime of the Taliban, they are far from knights in shining armour. For example, Human Rights Watch are long-standing critics of the UIF. In 2001, they released a paper citing concerns about the Northern Alliance taking posiitons in the US-backed government - A number of present and former commanders who may be eager to assume positions of leadership in the coalition have a long record of serious human rights abuse in Afghanistan.

The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan have also condemned the UIF and the fact that posts in the new government are being taken over by well-known pyschopathic war criminals.

The Northern Alliance and Palestinian militants can be commended for standing up for their countries, for what they believe is right. Unfortunately, they are also alike in that they're both capable of despicable, heinous acts againt civillians. That makes them no better than the Israelis or the Taliban and most definetely makes them terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah exactly, rather than admit they cannot defeat hamas, or hezbollah for that matter, they would rather be more indiscriminate and kill more civilians. The israelis created the militants through their own actions, and their own unwillingness to have a rational dialogue, so it is entirely their own fault and I have no sympathy with them whatsoever.

Fair enough, though I don't think any country is going to admit it can't beat a long-standing enemy who is terrorising its civillians. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way in support of Israel's actions, I think they're as bad as each other. Both sides have been just as guilty of an unwillingess to have a rational dialogue over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both sides have been just as guilty of an unwillingess to have a rational dialogue over the years.
The basic outlines of a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict have been supported by a broad international consensus for 30 years: a two-state settlement on the international border, perhaps with minor and mutual adjustments.

The Arab states formally accepted this proposal in 2002, as the Palestinians had long before. Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has made it clear that though this solution is not Hizbullah's preference, they will not disrupt it. Iran's "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei recently reaffirmed that Iran too supports this settlement. Hamas has indicated clearly that it is prepared to negotiate for a settlement in these terms as well.

This is taken from an op-ed peice by Noam Chomsky, you can read the whole piece here, which was initially taken from the Guardian.

To say that they are both as bad as each other would imply, to me, that the palestinians had not been willing to take part in a diplomatic solution - which is simply not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Neutral
Freedom Fighters? What a generalised, pishy, ignorant statement. You sound like Ronald Reagan, and that's just not a good thing.

The mujahideen were united when they rightly kicked the Soviets out of their country in 1992. But between 1992 and 1996, they were distinctly un-united as the mujahideen millitias turned on each other. During this time, the militants were responsible for thousands of civillian deaths, even openly attacking settlements simply for having an affiliation to a particular faction. Torture, rape and murder were daily events and the result was an utterly disastorous four years.

When the Taliban took over in an attempt to stabalise the country, the factions of the mujahideen in opposition to the move formed the UIF, or Northern Alliance. So the murderous militia of the post-Soviet era made up BOTH the Taliban and the UIF. Whilst the UIF did well to overthrow the tyrannous regime of the Taliban, they are far from knights in shining armour. For example, Human Rights Watch are long-standing critics of the UIF. In 2001, they released a paper citing concerns about the Northern Alliance taking posiitons in the US-backed government - A number of present and former commanders who may be eager to assume positions of leadership in the coalition have a long record of serious human rights abuse in Afghanistan.

The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan have also condemned the UIF and the fact that posts in the new government are being taken over by well-known pyschopathic war criminals.

The Northern Alliance and Palestinian militants can be commended for standing up for their countries, for what they believe is right. Unfortunately, they are also alike in that they're both capable of despicable, heinous acts againt civillians. That makes them no better than the Israelis or the Taliban and most definetely makes them terrorists.

They are fighting for freedom from Israeli forces this makes them freedom fighters, not terrorists:up: However in a few years if the Israelis stop oppressing them which probably won't happen they will probably turn on each other for the pure and simple reason that they are Arabs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is taken from an op-ed peice by Noam Chomsky, you can read the whole piece here, which was initially taken from the Guardian.

To say that they are both as bad as each other would imply, to me, that the palestinians had not been willing to take part in a diplomatic solution - which is simply not true.

Noam Chomsky isn't my favourite writer and that particular article irritated me, especially for the phrase "Israel has helped to destroy secular Arab nationalism and to create Hizbullah and Hamas, just as US violence has expedited the rise of extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terror", which is quite simply a ridiculous thing to say. That's a whole new can of worms, though...

That's not at all what I was implying - I pointed out that Israel, too, have initiated and entered into peace talks over the years. The fact that these have never come to fruition makes me think they're as bad as each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noam Chomsky isn't my favourite writer and that particular article irritated me, especially for the phrase "Israel has helped to destroy secular Arab nationalism and to create Hizbullah and Hamas, just as US violence has expedited the rise of extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terror", which is quite simply a ridiculous thing to say. That's a whole new can of worms, though...

What chomsky has said there is entirely true actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are fighting for freedom from Israeli forces this makes them freedom fighters, not terrorists:up: However in a few years if the Israelis stop oppressing them which probably won't happen they will probably turn on each other for the pure and simple reason that they are Arabs.

The phrase "Freedom Fighters" suggests the sparing use of righteous violence against the oppresive forces. It's how you fight that makes the difference between the two terms.

This most certainly was terrorism...

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Israel buries victims of shooting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What chomsky has said there is entirely true actually.

I don't think so. To say that US violence has directly lead to increased "extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terror" is tiresome at best.

There are countless examples of terrorism from Islamic extremists before the US invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. 9/11 anyone? The '98 American Embassy Bombings? Also, for Chomsky's view to have any credence, surely attacks should be confined, or at least primarily targetting, American citizens? What about Madrid, London and Bali? And then there are attacks on individuals - Theo Van Gogh's murder, for example.

Perhaps you might say there has been a rise in the number of Americans being targetted, but there hasn't been increased jihadi terror - it's just that the world has started to notice it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. To say that US violence has directly lead to increased "extremist Islamic fundamentalism and jihadi terror" is tiresome at best.

There are countless examples of terrorism from Islamic extremists before the US invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. 9/11 anyone? The '98 American Embassy Bombings? Also, for Chomsky's view to have any credence, surely attacks should be confined, or at least primarily targetting, American citizens? What about Madrid, London and Bali? And then there are attacks on individuals - Theo Van Gogh's murder, for example.

Perhaps you might say there has been a rise in the number of Americans being targetted, but there hasn't been increased jihadi terror - it's just that the world has started to notice it.

Unfortunately you're quite wrong. Yes, "militant islamic extremism" has existed for years before the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, but largely because of Israel and the US's actions way before any of this 9/11 nonsense, and 9/11 was itself a response to american actions. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very much generating more radicalism, this is what chomsky was getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately you're quite wrong. Yes, "militant islamic extremism" has existed for years before the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, but largely because of Israel and the US's actions way before any of this 9/11 nonsense, and 9/11 was itself a response to american actions. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very much generating more radicalism, this is what chomsky was getting at.

There is quite simply no evidence linking American involvment in any conflicts to increased Islamic terrorism. We're obviously not going to agree on this, but I'm adamant that I'm not mistaken on this one.

To be blunt - the fact is, these extremists don't target Americans because they're American, they target them because they're not Muslim. Which is the same reason they targetted Madrid, London and Bali and the same reason why terrorist attacks are carried out indiscriminately against non-Muslims the world over. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan simply provide a helpful excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...