Page 21 of 31 First ... 111718192021 22232425 ... Last

Well maybe state your opinion before criticizing others. .



I fail to believe that as a UK resident yourself you can say that Hamas poses a bigger threat than the IRA. The IRA were well armed, good guerilla fighters and successfully targeted and bombed key economic targets of the UK. Hamas have rockets, no advanced technology, the IRA in a similar fashion made use with make shift bombs and the like. If the IRA wanted to they could of launched rocket attacks but the fact is they didn't need to or want to as it would go against their fighting style and would be outside of the objectives they wanted to achieve of targeting the UK's infrastructure in Northern Ireland.

Look how the IRA successfully held down "Free Derry" and the amount of time they held it for. A group that posed a small threat couldn't do that. The fact the IRA were never that huge in numbers shows that with numbers they had they could already operate an effective campaign.

not to me as a UK citizen, no. but i didn't say that.

hamas absolutely represent a bigger threat to israelies than the ira ever did to brits.

If they want more support from me than Hamas then yes. Give me a reason to support you more or I give equal amounts of money to both sides.

How does that logic work? All I am saying, is give war a chance. With Fatah in charge the situation will improve.

Tribes:

Stop splitting hairs. Yes, you are correct in that any call for the return of the 6 northern counties to the Republic would be a dissolution of the "United Kingdom of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland." The IRA provos did, indeed, seek to dissolve that union.

However, what the poster really meant -- which you are aware -- is that the IRA had no designs (offically at least) on Scottish or English territory. Hamas (or at least notable elements thereof) really would prefer for ALL of Israel to cease to exist.

Now, you could dig into the motivations of some of the IRA/Provo/Splinter IRA groups and argue that they were part of the Soviet expansion of communism effort, and that success in the 6 would only have led to a pause followed by efforts in England and Scotland, but I think that level of detail was a bit beyond what the poster intended in drawing his analogy.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video...s.gaza.boy.cnn

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/me...oss/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/me...ool/index.html




No escape...no way out apart from death...

No journalists allowed to see...

No Red Cross/Crescent access allowed...

UN Staff attacked...and killed...

Hundreds of civilians dead...



Its Deathcamp Gaza now.

Nothing more, nothing less. Talk all you want, but that's what it comes down to.

But that's OK as some of them want to destroy all If Israel for completely incomprehensible reasons.

As long as the IDF keep blasting, eventually they'll realise that it's Hamas that are forcing a bigger, stronger country to kill them. All they have to do is stop Hamas and then Israel might think about letting some food in now and again.

werent you just warned for comparing israel to nazis?

Then the IRA must not have been much of a threat, as the number of IDF active-service personnel - fully trained soldiers of a modern, well-equipped army - alone is something like several times the number of ragtag, lightly armed gunmen Hamas has at its disposal...

And, oh yeah, Israel almost certainly had nukes the last I heard.

Jaysis. Perspective.

he said deathcamp...he didn´t say anything about nazis.

"Deathcamp" and "nazi" have been conflated terms for decades now. Denotatively different, of course, but the connotative connection is well known. To refer to one is to imply the other -- and I don't know any of our BR posters here who are dumb enough not to know that. You're a pretty bright group.

Besides, calling it a deathcamp doesn't fit the facts. Deathcamps were murder factories. Gaza is besieged (with all the historical nastiness that condition implies). The facts of the situation in Gaza are grim enough in themselves without the meritricious additions.

However, Israel is violating the rules according to the Conventions of Geneva.

You cannot deny that.

i never bother to reply to tribemans point-scoring inanities, but cheers anyway.

compared to hamas, no.

we had nukes too, but last time i checked we never threaded to nuke the ira....................

and so is hamas by shooting rockets into civilian areas.

you cannot deny that

Works both ways
Do you really expect hamas to keep to the deal if Israel hasn't ?
And since what was written was ....Israel keeps itself to the peace-treaty
What was your point ? oh you don't have one

Yep it doesn't fit the facts , the Vatican were more accurate calling Gaza a concentration camp , or that Israei proffesor calling it an open air prison .


One major difference is that Israel is a signatory to the conventions so they are supposed to abide by them .

so hamas can go and massacre hundreds of citizens if it wants to because they didnt sign?

I feel the more pertinent issue is Israel doing it - irregardless of what a piece of paper states.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/7818577.stm





As that article explains Israel has the coordinates of UN run facilities which they have been bombing.

What exactly do UN facilities and aid have to do with Hamas?

hiding terrorists in the food bags? smuggling rockets in medical supply's?

What excuse can israel have for this? Is their aim really that bad? If it is they should really train their armed forces a bit better.

so basically you say its ok for hamas to do it, but you go all up in arms if israel is accused of doing it.

what do you think the secondary explosions were within the facilities after the IDF hit it?
also happened with the mosque, which was turned into a weapons storage compound.

Err, yes. The reason why should be obvious.

Hamas isn't doing it. Israel is. That is the pertinent issue. I hope you can try not to infer bias in this again.

To humour you: no, I don't think Hamas should attack Israel and kill 700 and rising people, blow up buildings and cut off Israel's food and water. That would be bad. I don't think Hamas should have nukes either.

I don't think there should be a situation in Palestine where people in desperation vote for a group like Hamas.

the point is that if the reasons for outrage is humanitarian, you should be equally outraged at both sides.

Do you have a link for that?

How about a ratio of outrage based on purely the deaths caused in this current conflict as it's difficult to put a figure on the rest of the misery (treatable deaths due to destroyed infrastructure etc etc)

Palestinians: 700. Estimated over half civilian casualties
Israelis: under 20

Believe me I hold both sides equally in contempt. The fanatics on both sides are foolish, weak willed, short sighted and hateful people led by the vainglorious and the powerhungry. And the longer the conflict continues the greater their numbers swell.

The reasons that Israel comes in for more criticism than Hamas are numerous. Mostly it is because they are the Western democracy taking on the mantle of terror, whereas Hamas is the Arab terrorist outfit taking on the mantle of democracy. There is also an element of "us and them", whereby we see our own culture and values reflected in Israel and so are disappointed when she strays.

So, what exactly is your point here? Is Israel obligated to wait until Hamas evens out the body count in order to proceed with the military campaign?

Would you then please proceed to explain to us befuddled sceptics how, exactly, does Hamas pose a threat greater than "nuisance" to Israel, anyway ? The friggin' surrounding Arab states, which actually have proper armies, weren't posing a real threat to Israel's continued existence anymore in the '73 Yom Kippur war (as they were out to recapture some lost territory before the superpowers blew the whistle to end the match) and have thereafter not bothered to be more than minor nuisances at best.

Hamas has a bunch of irregulars with small arms, some homemade rockets and a ghetto almost entirely dependent on continued foreign aid for its continued survival. I'm kind of having a hard time here seeing the part where they are a meaningful threat to Israel, the regional military superpower.

Yeah, wonder why. And the fact the things were zeroed in on Russian cities wasn't the main reason, even.
Not the point though, as I mentioned it to underline the rather absolute disparity in raw power at the two sides' disposal.

They aren't a threat precisely because Israel does not *allow* them to become one. Every once in a while they require a proper whipping from the IDF in order to keep them in line.

Uh, yeah. And pray tell what'd they have if the IDF didn't occasionally drop an of bombs on them and kill a bunch of civvies on the side - marginally more ragtag irregulars with small arms ?

Fearsome. I can see how they're quaking with fear in Tel Aviv at the mere thought.

Page 21 of 31 First ... 111718192021 22232425 ... Last