The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[lapal_fan]

I think this thread has reached a point of no return..

Good post.

I too am inclined to that way of thinking... not only in respect of this thread... but also with regard to Israel and Palestine.

Perhaps David Owen was right when talking about the Balkans... 'the best solution is to fight it out'. Maybe we should allow that to happen in Palestine.

I can already hear you all crying 'Ooo thats not fair, Israel is stronger'... well I remember 1967 when Israel was expected to lose, but she won... I remember the celebrations of 1973, when the Egyptians caught Israel by surprise during Yom Kippur... yet 3 weeks later were begging for a ceasefire.

The fact is, the Arabs were stronger, much stronger, but as fighters they are even worse than the French.

However well he started in 1939. after Stalingrad Hitler was sliding quickly down the tube... but credit where credit is due... did he winge... not for a moment. So in 1945 we closed in for an easy kill. I wasn't born then, but I do not remember my mummy and daddy telling me it wasn't fair on dear cuddly old Uncle Adolf. He sowed it and he reaped it.

When you're given the ball, you certainly do run with it, don't ya?

Like forest gump.

[peterms]

 

Israel is just as much a terrorist state as Palestine

Thing is, when you are a resistance movement which is totally outgunned by a vastly more powerful invading army, the only recourse you have is methods which are now labeled "terrorist". Like the French Resistance in WW2.

That is assuming the invading army aren't going to agree to get out of your country.

What we see is a massively unequal fight between a terrorist state, and a small and weak resistance movement.

[A.J.Rimmer]

 

I'm not sure of the latest count, but Israel aslo has some 50 dead... and they didn't die of old age.

56 to 1350 and every single one of the 56 died invading another country not learning maths or playing on a beach or sheltering from bombs

 

 

Not quite accurate, but I take your point.

 

Now in WW2 the Germans lost some 5,500,000... but we lost a tiny proportion of that... from memory some 360,000.

 

Do let me know if you and your friends wish to volunteer to even up the numbers a little... the Germans and I would feel so much better.

[A.J.Rimmer]

 

When you're given the ball, you certainly do run with it, don't ya?

Like forest gump.

 

 

 Thanks I'll take that as a compliment.

[peterms]

[Risso]

 

 

Israel is just as much a terrorist state as Palestine

Thing is, when you are a resistance movement which is totally outgunned by a vastly more powerful invading army, the only recourse you have is methods which are now labeled "terrorist". Like the French Resistance in WW2.

That is assuming the invading army aren't going to agree to get out of your country.

What we see is a massively unequal fight between a terrorist state, and a small and weak resistance movement.

 

 

Hmmm, I sense you're trying to outdo the "other side" by being overly dramatic. 

[peterms]

Israel is just as much a terrorist state as Palestine

Thing is, when you are a resistance movemenwhich is totally outgunned by a vastly more powerful invading army, the only recourse you have is methods which are now labeled "terrorist". Like the French Resistance in WW2.

That is assuming the invading army aren't going to agree to get out of your country.

What we see is a massively unequal fight between a terrorist state, and a small and weak resistance movement.

 

Hmmm, I sense you're trying to outdo the "other side" by being overly dramatic.

Well I've re-read it twice, and I don't see anything dramatic in it, or anything that any reasonably fair and objective account of the situation and the relative strength of the two sides would not echo.

Where do you think the drama comes in?

[Risso]

What exactly does the "relative strength of the two sides" have to with the definition of terms such as "resistance" and "terrorist"?  Is Al Qaeda not a terrorist organisation because they don't have the weaponry that Western armies can muster?

[maqroll]

 

 

I wonder how many of you here have actually killed anyone?

[peterms]

It's to do with the old cliche "why don't they wear uniforms and fight on the battlefield". Well, because they are so outnumbered and outgunned that there is no conceivable way they could win. So they have to fight in other ways.

More powerful armies like to present this as "cowardice". Many of us would see the cowardice as wanting to hold a turkey shoot from a position of virtual impregnability.

In that situation, like WW2 France, like Palestine now, the only possible form of resistance is something other than pitched battles.

All that is pretty uncontroversial, isn't it?

"Terrorist" is the label Israel seeks to give the Palestinians, for propaganda purposes and to influence opinion.

Generally, people other than the invading army see fighting back as "resistance" (response to being attacked) rather than "terrorism" (random and unexplained attacks against unsuspecting innocents).

Israel seeks to present a narrative about it being attacked, and "having to defend itself". I suggest that most people recognise that they have stolen Palestinian land, water and other resources, and are no different from any other occupying army, seeking to control the population they have invaded.

So that's the connection between the words and the situation. I suggest it's far from dramatic, just a description of events without the filter of Fox News or Mark Regev.

[Risso]

It's to do with the old cliche "why don't they wear uniforms and fight on the battlefield". Well, because they are so outnumbered and outgunned that there is no conceivable way they could win. So they have to fight in other ways.

More powerful armies like to present this as "cowardice". Many of us would see the cowardice as wanting to hold a turkey shoot from a position of virtual impregnability.

In that situation, like WW2 France, like Palestine now, the only possible form of resistance is something other than pitched battles.

All that is pretty uncontroversial, isn't it?

"Terrorist" is the label Israel seeks to give the Palestinians, for propaganda purposes and to influence opinion.

Generally, people other than the invading army see fighting back as "resistance" (response to being attacked) rather than "terrorism" (random and unexplained attacks against unsuspecting innocents).

Israel seeks to present a narrative about it being attacked, and "having to defend itself". I suggest that most people recognise that they have stolen Palestinian land, water and other resources, and are no different from any other occupying army, seeking to control the population they have invaded.

So that's the connection between the words and the situation. I suggest it's far from dramatic, just a description of events without the filter of Fox News or Mark Regev.

 

Which bit of Gaza has Israel invaded?  I'm not an expert on the matter at all, but weren't all the settlements there abandoned 10 years ago?  Your comparison with WWII France doesn't seem to be very accurate.

[peterms]

It's to do with the old cliche "why don't they wear uniforms and fight on the battlefield". Well, because they are so outnumbered and outgunned that there is no conceivable way they could win. So they have to fight in other ways.

More powerful armies like to present this as "cowardice". Many of us would see the cowardice as wanting to hold a turkey shoot from a position of virtual impregnability.

In that situation, like WW2 France, like Palestine now, the only possible form of resistance is something other than pitched battles.

All that is pretty uncontroversial, isn't it?

"Terrorist" is the label Israel seeks to give the Palestinians, for propaganda purposes and to influence opinion.

Generally, people other than the invading army see fighting back as "resistance" (response to being attacked) rather than "terrorism" (random and unexplained attacks against unsuspecting innocents).

Israel seeks to present a narrative about it being attacked, and "having to defend itself". I suggest that most people recognise that they have stolen Palestinian land, water and other resources, and are no different from any other occupying army, seeking to control the population they have invaded.

So that's the connection between the words and the situation. I suggest it's far from dramatic, just a description of events without the filter of Fox News or Mark Regev.

 

Which bit of Gaza has Israel invaded?  I'm not an expert on the matter at all, but weren't all the settlements there abandoned 10 years ago?  Your comparison with WWII France doesn't seem to be very accurate.

I was speaking of Palestine.

But in respect of the different question you ask, which bit also of Gaza have they invaded, the answer is all of it, when it suits them. As well as periodic invasions, they control all borders, ignore internationally agreed sea borders and shoot fishermen who fish in their own seas, they stand behind fences and murder people who come in their line of sight, they decree no-walk zones within Gaza and murder people who walk there, in their own land...

But you must know all this.

[peterms]

This boy's father and brother have just been murdered by the invading Israeli army.

In ten years' time, I expect he will be a "terrorist". Wouldn't you?

[lapal_fan]

This boy's father and brother have just been murdered by the invading Israeli army.

In ten years' time, I expect he will be a "terrorist". Wouldn't you?

He won't have a choice, he'll be sucked into the arms of whoever helps him.

He may be given a home by completely normal people, he might be given a home by "terrorists".

Either way, Israel have given him more than enough ammo for revenge.

Now who's fault would that be, if in 10 years time, he kills a bunch of Israelis?

Would he have done it because of this? Or would he have done it anyway?

Is the spoon real?

[A.J.Rimmer]

This boy's father and brother have just been murdered by the invading Israeli army.

In ten years' time, I expect he will be a "terrorist". Wouldn't you?

 

 

I think I saw this little fellow on TV recently... he was singing Israeli hate songs and chanting 'Death to all Jews'... looks like they heard him.

 

 

As for your above comment...  oddly enough not too many Germans are Nazis nowadays and they have proved surprisingly reluctant to vote for Jew killers.

 

 

SECURE THE SAME FUTURE FOR YOUR KIDS....   VOTE HAMAS  

[Risso]

 

 

It's to do with the old cliche "why don't they wear uniforms and fight on the battlefield". Well, because they are so outnumbered and outgunned that there is no conceivable way they could win. So they have to fight in other ways.

More powerful armies like to present this as "cowardice". Many of us would see the cowardice as wanting to hold a turkey shoot from a position of virtual impregnability.

In that situation, like WW2 France, like Palestine now, the only possible form of resistance is something other than pitched battles.

All that is pretty uncontroversial, isn't it?

"Terrorist" is the label Israel seeks to give the Palestinians, for propaganda purposes and to influence opinion.

Generally, people other than the invading army see fighting back as "resistance" (response to being attacked) rather than "terrorism" (random and unexplained attacks against unsuspecting innocents).

Israel seeks to present a narrative about it being attacked, and "having to defend itself". I suggest that most people recognise that they have stolen Palestinian land, water and other resources, and are no different from any other occupying army, seeking to control the population they have invaded.

So that's the connection between the words and the situation. I suggest it's far from dramatic, just a description of events without the filter of Fox News or Mark Regev.

 

Which bit of Gaza has Israel invaded?  I'm not an expert on the matter at all, but weren't all the settlements there abandoned 10 years ago?  Your comparison with WWII France doesn't seem to be very accurate.

I was speaking of Palestine.

But in respect of the different question you ask, which bit also of Gaza have they invaded, the answer is all of it, when it suits them. As well as periodic invasions, they control all borders, ignore internationally agreed sea borders and shoot fishermen who fish in their own seas, they stand behind fences and murder people who come in their line of sight, they decree no-walk zones within Gaza and murder people who walk there, in their own land...

But you must know all this.

 

 

You really need to come up with a new debating "device", the overused "you must know this" is getting a little bit repetitive now.  But be that as it may, you seem to be ignoring Hamas's involvement in all of this, who clearly ARE a terrorist organisation.  They seized power violently, and have murdered many of their own citizens. 

 

But you must know this.

[peterms]

You really need to come up with a new debating "device", the overused "you must know this" is getting a little bit repetitive now.  But be that as it may, you seem to be ignoring Hamas's involvement in all of this, who clearly ARE a terrorist organisation.  They seized power violently, and have murdered many of their own citizens. 

 

But you must know this.

It's not a debating device, nor a phrase I use a great deal as far as I am aware.  I'm simply puzzled by how, if you recognise that Israel is occupying Palestinian land, steals property, destroys agriculture, kills fishermen who use waters they are legally entitled to use, shoots people who on their own territory come too close to Israeli fences, blockades the whole of Gaza and prevents the import of a wide range of things including (as a ridiculous example) coriander - if you recognise all this as fact, which I suppose you must if you have the slightest knowledge of the situation, you think it is dramatic to say that resistance to an occupying army is better described as resistance, and that "terrorism" is a word designed to suggest that peaceful, law-abiding Israel is just going about its lawful business when sudden and inexplicable attacks come out of nowhere.

 

It doesn't seem at all dramatic to me to view this as resistance to brutal occupation, not some war of terror waged on ideological grounds.

[Risso]

 

if you recognise all this as fact, which I suppose you must if you have the slightest knowledge of the situation

 

 

You don't even realise you're doing it now.

[Risso]

I can't stand Russell Brand.  But this is very good, even though it's a bit of a sitting target:

 

[blandy]

...Unfortunately, the Hamas thinks otherwise. Hamas know they cannot win this from the military aspects. They know Israel will win any confrontation. Still, they can win when it comes to propaganda and "Human rights" and "world opinion". Their way to win is to show as many civilian casualties as possible - and browsing through recent posts here shows how right they are in their assumption...

I don't think either side wants peace. I don't mean people like you, or in your counterparts in Palestine, I mean the Hamas people and the current Israel Gov't. Both those bodies want to fight.

Clearly Hamas firing off rockets and so on at indiscriminate targets is not 'peaceful". Equally, and worse is the Israeli actions in terms of shelling schools, hospitals, kids on beaches and enforcing the oppression and economic and humanitarian hardship on the ordinary people in Gaza and the West Bank.

If you perceive that Hamas' way to win is to show as many civilian casualties as possible, then the way to stop them winning would be to stop killing civilians wouldn't it? But Israel clearly hasn't made any efforts dot do that. Though to be fair, the argument that it is hamas responsible for the deaths f the kids and women and innocent people sheltering in the UN refuges is utterly ludicrous.

 

AJ, I am with you

 

Everyone here keeps analyzing the situation through the nice, liberal, progressive European eyes. Let's just give the Palestinians what they want - and peace shall come.

 

wrong

 

I guess I'm part of 'everyone'. What I want is for the Israeli military to stop murdering children and bombing UN shelters.

 Exactly. It is indefensible. There are zero reasons for those actions. None.

 

Today's 3 day ceasefire ended within 3 hours after what the UN, not famed for their support of Israel, described as 'flagrant breaches by Hamas'.  These are the words of the BBC.

 

This conflict will never end until the Palestinians take responsibility for their own people, territory, government, policy, call it what you will... but with Hamas there, it will not be easy.

 

Hamas are not interested in working, they are not interested in wealth creation, they are not interested in improving the standard of living and they are certainly not interested in the lives of the people.  

 

Hamas are only interested in maintaining their power ...

 That seems correct. I wonder why they're like that?

If Hamas aims to kill every Jew on the planet, as did Hitler, that is a perfectly clear and valid aim

That's either trolling or an entirely new definition of "valid", which on planet earth means reasonable, justifiable, rational, logical etc. Claiming validity for hitlers aims is the inverse of godwins law, I'd have thought. I'll go with trolling, I think.