UK support to Israel/Palestine v Ceasefire calls

[Thug]

24 minutes ago, bickster said:

If only you'd read past the first line...

 

I did.

If only you’d bothered to read what I was replying to.

 

1 hour ago, meregreen said:

ceasefire is not indefinite, that would be an armistice

A ceasefire is the same as an armistice.  That was my reply.

What exactly is the relevance of what a ceasefire may or may not be used for?

A ceasefire may be used by one side to take out the trash, and the other to paint a replica of the Mona Lisa.  And what? 

Someone says that a ceasefire is not an armistice.  I show that they’re the same.  You come along and give examples of what a ceasefire may be used for….

What’s your point?

In fact, I don’t want to know your point.  I suggest let’s get this thread back on topic.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice

An armistice is a formal agreement of warring parties to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of a war, as it may constitute only a cessation of hostilities while an attempt is made to negotiate a lasting peace.^[1] It is derived from the Latin arma, meani

Edited November 16, 2023 by Thug

[OutByEaster?]

39 minutes ago, blandy said:

They dgaf. If they did they wouldn't have done their attack, If they did they'd give the hostages back immediately. If they did they wouldn't use human shields.

I'm not sure that's the case - they'll gaf about their moms, sisters, kids, brothers and cousins that they've lost and they'll gaf about the house they grew up in no longer being there, they'll gaf about not being able to go home I'd have thought they'll gaf about being hungry a lot of the time for the foreseeable future.

I don't think that's the same as being dissuaded, I think there's something in the mindset on both sides that starts with "this is a thing we need to do to survive" and that everything else is framed by that, but I think they gaf. I think in their own minds they carried out the attacks because they gaf, they took the hostages because they gaf and they're embedded into a population because they're a part of it, they're representing it and they gaf about its future. 

There's a pretty big space to argue with them about their interpretation of that, but I'm fairly sure they care.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Thug said:

A ceasefire is the same as an armistice.  That was my reply

Really? That was your point? Oh ok. It’s really not how that confused mess came across to me

[Thug]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Really? That was your point? Oh ok. It’s really not how that confused mess came across to me

Wow.

I quoted the guy.

Then gave links to what ceasefire meant.  Where, quite literally, the source I linked and quoted said ‘a ceasefire, also known as a truce or armistice’

Then I posted a dictionary quote of what the word indefinitely means - because the poor chap didn’t know what it meant.

It could not be clearer.

Give up trying to make me look the fool, it’s backfiring.

 

 

[bickster]

25 minutes ago, Thug said:

Give up trying to make me look the fool, it’s backfiring

Genuinely not trying to make you foolish, I read your post as trying to say something completely different.

[Thug]

24 minutes ago, bickster said:

Genuinely not trying to make you foolish, I read your post as trying to say something completely different.

Ok, fair enough.

Easily done.

i declare a ceasefire

[sidcow]

24 minutes ago, Thug said:

Ok, fair enough.

Easily done.

i declare a ceasefire

Oh dear. You'll have to resign now. 

[magnkarl]

On 16/11/2023 at 09:52, chrisp65 said:

I don’t have the manifests, I’m sure it’s mostly bread and bandages. But we do know from flight radar, UKDefence Journal, janes, and others that there were multiple flights through October, flights every day including 6 on October 15th. We also know, as reported by Janes, that they are carrying out aerial surveillance.

So, if we are assisting one side in a war, and parliament was to vote for a ceasefire, I’d presume that would make it more difficult for the government to continue providing that assistance against the democratic will of parliament.

Fanciful, I know. But at some point there must be a number of dead where we begin to think enough is probably enough and start to actually not support further killing. We can’t have all the politicians all voting pro war because they think everyone else is pro war and they’re scared of looking like a pussy and losing 7% of the gammon vote in a key marginal. There comes a point where you have to actually believe in something. I can completely respect that human rights lawyer Starmer hasn’t got to that point yet. Or if he has, he considers performative voting for war to be a good price for taking back Stoke in 12 months time.

I guess some of this surveillance activity is related to Hezbollah, Syria and ISIS too.

Whatever Israel does there are other reasons why we’ve been patrolling the area for several years. I’m not saying we’re not assisting Israel, but I’m pretty sure they’ve got surveillance capability and assets that far outweigh our mostly condemned surveillance fleet.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

I guess some of this surveillance activity is related to Hezbollah, Syria and ISIS too.

Whatever Israel does there are other reasons why we’ve been patrolling the area for several years. I’m not saying we’re not assisting Israel, but I’m pretty sure they’ve got surveillance capability and assets that far outweigh our mostly condemned surveillance fleet.

The government minister was quoted as saying it was surveillance to assist Israel. That’s not my spin, or 2+2=5 that’s a quote from a minister of state, for everything that’s worth these days.

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The government minister was quoted as saying it was surveillance to assist Israel.

And that's correct, or at least part of the picture. It's also to assist our own UK intelligence gathering on terrorist group activities. What it isn't is helping Israel kill civilians.

[Thug]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

And that's correct, or at least part of the picture. It's also to assist our own UK intelligence gathering on terrorist group activities. What it isn't is helping Israel kill civilians.

You what?

Thats like the getaway driver saying he was just trying to learn a route to help him in his taxi job, and had nothing at all to do with the bank robbery.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, Thug said:

You what?

Thats like the getaway driver saying he was just trying to learn a route to help him in his taxi job, and had nothing at all to do with the bank robbery.

It really isn't.

What the surveillance flights are doing is listening in and watching the activity of Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas communications and movements. It's known as an ISTAR role, but is basically real time RF signals monitoring and analysis. The support it gives Israel is warning of imminent rocket attacks or border incursions, any intercepted comms that details future terrorist activities or plans, that type of stuff. It's essentially help to protect against /warn about rocket attacks and stuff like that.

[Thug]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

It really isn't.

What the surveillance flights are doing is listening in and watching the activity of Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas communications and movements. It's known as an ISTAR role, but is basically real time RF signals monitoring and analysis. The support it gives Israel is warning of imminent rocket attacks or border incursions, any intercepted comms that details future terrorist activities or plans, that type of stuff. It's essentially help to protect against /warn about rocket attacks and stuff like that.

No I understand that.

But what you’re describing is acting the look out while your mate beats up the little kid.

I’m not saying it’s wrong, you’re just being a good mate.  But own it.

 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, Thug said:

But what you’re describing is acting the look out while your mate beats up the little kid

I'd vary your analogy and say it's guarding your mate's innocent kids while he tries to find the bastards who killed some of them, though unfortunately your mate is on a rampage of revenge. But guarding the kids is still the right thing to do.

[chrisp65]

46 minutes ago, blandy said:

And that's correct, or at least part of the picture. It's also to assist our own UK intelligence gathering on terrorist group activities. What it isn't is helping Israel kill civilians.

Do you have evidence or a quote or anything that our assistance to Israel hasn’t lead to civilians being bombed or shot?

 

 

[blandy]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

Do you have evidence or a quote or anything that our assistance to Israel hasn’t lead to civilians being bombed or shot?

You first raised the issue

Quote

 if Westminster voted for a ceasefire it would make the RAF flights in to Israel more tricky.

But hey, perhaps they’re just delivering Um Bongo.

I don't really know why you raised it. It read like you were implying or had inferred from something you'd seen on the internet or somewhere that the RAF was delivering arms in to Israel. You then said you had no idea what was on the flights. I mean perhaps it was a who - maybe various diplomat type people wanting to pass on messages from the UK government, maybe the flights were collecting stuff to go then to Ukraine...

It all looked a bit like speculation with underlying insinuation from a point of ignorance of any actual facts. I don't mean that to sound harsh, more that your post seemed flippant.

Anyways, I think it was then AWOL who raised the surveillance flights over the med, and I typed what those flights were doing, based on the types of aircraft being used.

Can I produce evidence of an absence of something? When did you stop beating your wife

[Thug]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

You first raised the issue

I don't really know why you raised it. It read like you were implying or had inferred from something you'd seen on the internet or somewhere that the RAF was delivering arms in to Israel. You then said you had no idea what was on the flights. I mean perhaps it was a who - maybe various diplomat type people wanting to pass on messages from the UK government, maybe the flights were collecting stuff to go then to Ukraine...

It all looked a bit like speculation with underlying insinuation from a point of ignorance of any actual facts. I don't mean that to sound harsh, more that your post seemed flippant.

Anyways, I think it was then AWOL who raised the surveillance flights over the med, and I typed what those flights were doing, based on the types of aircraft being used.

Can I produce evidence of an absence of something? When did you stop beating your wife

If every opinion was only ever based on primary source evidence, then you’re in for a system shock.

There are some reasonable conclusions you can draw from limited evidence - but remain speculation.

Lets take your example:

Quote

Can I produce evidence of an absence of something? When did you stop beating your wife

now if you had seen his wife with bruising all over her every day for years, then suddenly you saw her without bruising, I think your question would have some weight. No?

Edited November 18, 2023 by Thug

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

You first raised the issue

I don't really know why you raised it. It read like you were implying or had inferred from something you'd seen on the internet or somewhere that the RAF was delivering arms in to Israel. You then said you had no idea what was on the flights. I mean perhaps it was a who - maybe various diplomat type people wanting to pass on messages from the UK government, maybe the flights were collecting stuff to go then to Ukraine...

It all looked a bit like speculation with underlying insinuation from a point of ignorance of any actual facts. I don't mean that to sound harsh, more that your post seemed flippant.

Anyways, I think it was then AWOL who raised the surveillance flights over the med, and I typed what those flights were doing, based on the types of aircraft being used.

Can I produce evidence of an absence of something? When did you stop beating your wife

Woah, we’re talking about surveillance flights our government have stated are to assist Israel, at which point you’ve stated it wasn’t to help Israel kill civilians. 

I’ve asked what you based that assumption on.

I’ve specifically not suggested we imported arms into Israel, though I did speculate previously that was what you were reading between the lines so you could rubbish it. If we’re going to talk in terms of speculation, insinuation and ignorance then I’m all the more interested in how you know our surveillance assistance hasn’t lead to civilian deaths.

 

[blandy]

11 minutes ago, Thug said:

now if you had seen his wife with bruising all over her every day for years, then suddenly you saw her without bruising, I think your question would have some weight. No?

Precisely, though maybe you've missed (I didn't expand on) my reply point there.

It was just that Chris had asked me to prove we weren't doing something, basically - it's an unanswerable question - prove there isn't a God, type of thing.

And you're quite right, too - If every opinion was only ever based on primary source evidence, then you’re in for a system shock. There are some reasonable conclusions you can draw from limited evidence - but remain speculation. The thing is, it was apparent that Chris was speculating, but in my opinion it was not a reasonable/supportable level of speculation. But I'm an engineer and like evidence based stuff before reaching conclusions, others are different and like the more creative thinking type of stuff. I don't think RAF flights into Israel prove or even imply much at all, other than (Chris said) an RAF plane landed in Israel on the day before the attacks by Hamas and AWOL showed the RAF is operating surveillance flights over the med and an MP confirmed that surveillance was in support of Israel and I know that the aircraft is an ISTAR surveillance plane which gathers Elint.

But people are free to draw whatever sane, reasonable or unreasonable conclusions they want and post them on here.

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Precisely, though maybe you've missed (I didn't expand on) my reply point there.

It was just that Chris had asked me to prove we weren't doing something, basically - it's an unanswerable question - prove there isn't a God, type of thing.

And you're quite right, too - If every opinion was only ever based on primary source evidence, then you’re in for a system shock. There are some reasonable conclusions you can draw from limited evidence - but remain speculation. The thing is, it was apparent that Chris was speculating, but in my opinion it was not a reasonable/supportable level of speculation. But I'm an engineer and like evidence based stuff before reaching conclusions, others are different and like the more creative thinking type of stuff. I don't think RAF flights into Israel prove or even imply much at all, other than (Chris said) an RAF plane landed in Israel on the day before the attacks by Hamas and AWOL showed the RAF is operating surveillance flights over the med and an MP confirmed that surveillance was in support of Israel and I know that the aircraft is an ISTAR surveillance plane which gathers Elint.

But people are free to draw whatever sane, reasonable or unreasonable conclusions they want and post them on here.

i asked if you had any quotes or evidence, that doesn’t feel unreasonable. You’re allowed to say no, you just feel that would be the case.