Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Fragony:
What the hell? This is about integrating Hamas in the western world????
Palestine. The people of Hamas can go along with it, or they can be purged. If they care about the Palestinian people and the Palestinian land that much, this is a chance to ensure the integrity of Palestinian land, the functionality of Palestinian institutions, and the prosperity of the Palestinian people. If the EU takes over direct control, the interests of the Palestinian people will be guaranteed by the EU. So any more Israeli incursions will be met by EU militaries, and EU measures.What the hell? This is about integrating Hamas in the western world????
People moan about how the Palestinians never make a decision that satisfies them. So take direct control, so you make their decisions for them. In exchange, you also take responsibility for their wellbeing.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Palestine. The people of Hamas can go along with it, or they can be purged. If they care about the Palestinian people and the Palestinian land that much, this is a chance to ensure the integrity of Palestinian land, the functionality of Palestinian institutions, and the prosperity of the Palestinian people. If the EU takes over direct control, the interests of the Palestinian people will be guaranteed by the EU. So any more Israeli incursions will be met by EU militaries, and EU measures.
People moan about how the Palestinians never make a decision that satisfies them. So take direct control, so you make their decisions for them. In exchange, you also take responsibility for their wellbeing.
So that all europeans on top of the Israeli's are to blame, no thanks. They already could have had everything.Palestine. The people of Hamas can go along with it, or they can be purged. If they care about the Palestinian people and the Palestinian land that much, this is a chance to ensure the integrity of Palestinian land, the functionality of Palestinian institutions, and the prosperity of the Palestinian people. If the EU takes over direct control, the interests of the Palestinian people will be guaranteed by the EU. So any more Israeli incursions will be met by EU militaries, and EU measures.
People moan about how the Palestinians never make a decision that satisfies them. So take direct control, so you make their decisions for them. In exchange, you also take responsibility for their wellbeing.
edit, bit much
Originally Posted by Fragony:
So that all europeans on top of the Israeli's are to blame, no thanks. They already could have had everything.
edit, bit much
If we don't want to involve ourselves fully, and we're not satisfied with what we're getting for what we're investing, then why not pull out fully, and leave them to their own devices, and stop moaning about what they do? If they decide to blow up Israelis, that's none of our business, and we should leave them to it. If the Israelis decide to blow up Palestinians, that's also none of our business, and we should leave them to it. If we're not going to do anything about it, stop the moral outrage, and just let them sort things out for themselves. As I've said before, I'd be quite happy with locking in everything and everyone to do with that region, save for those whom we actually need (ie. the oil countries), and letting them live with the consequences of their actions, away from us.So that all europeans on top of the Israeli's are to blame, no thanks. They already could have had everything.
edit, bit much
What legal or moral authority do EU and US have to do that? It would be seen as occupation and rightfully so.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
What legal or moral authority do EU and US have to do that? It would be seen as occupation and rightfully so.
The ability to do so. It wouldn't be seen as an occupation, as it will be a formal occupation, and eventual incorporation. Annexation in other words. It wouldn't be morally right, but it would at least be more honest than the tut-tutting and constant undermining of all sides that is currently happening.What legal or moral authority do EU and US have to do that? It would be seen as occupation and rightfully so.
Alternatively, as I've also suggested, we could fully pull out of all involvement in the region, and leave them to their games. Either would be better than what we have now.
well if a nation cannot create of itself a functioning nation state, and if the result is to export instability to its neighbours, then yes maybe the answer is annexation, but quite frankly who would be stupid enough to want the palestinians? (speaking from a geo-politics point of view).
Originally Posted by :
well if a nation cannot create of itself a functioning nation state, and if the result is to export instability to its neighbours, then yes maybe the answer is annexation
So you are saying to annex Israel .well if a nation cannot create of itself a functioning nation state, and if the result is to export instability to its neighbours, then yes maybe the answer is annexation
Originally Posted by :
They already could have had everything.
Yeah apart from the 67 borders , the 48 borders , the right of return , water rights , control of their borders and control of their money, control of the sea and air... but yeah apart from those little things they could have had everythingThey already could have had everything.
have i got that right?
I was saying most people don't blame thier own goverments for actions leading to the attacks but rather blame the attacker (of them) which is true for almost all countries...
I was saying most people don't blame thier own goverments for actions leading to the attacks but rather blame the attacker (of them) which is true for almost all countries...
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
If we don't want to involve ourselves fully, and we're not satisfied with what we're getting for what we're investing, then why not pull out fully, and leave them to their own devices, and stop moaning about what they do?
I am not moaning they are being dealt with properly, it's the only way. It's the only way for the Taliban, it's the only way for Al Quaida, and it's the only way with Hamas. Some people just want to see the world burn. So burn.If we don't want to involve ourselves fully, and we're not satisfied with what we're getting for what we're investing, then why not pull out fully, and leave them to their own devices, and stop moaning about what they do?
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
So you are saying to annex Israel .
no.So you are saying to annex Israel .
One article from the very pro-Zionist Ulrike Putz doesn't necessarily give a true and accurate picture of events.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
I am not moaning they are being dealt with properly, it's the only way. It's the only way for the Taliban, it's the only way for Al Quaida, and it's the only way with Hamas. Some people just want to see the world burn. So burn.
I'm talking about Palestine, not Hamas. If we're not satisfied that we're getting good returns from our investment, take it over completely so the returns will be in our hands, rather than filtering through via some middlemen. Or else just stop investing, and cut off all contacts. At the moment, we're telling the Palestinians what to do, but we don't want to go the whole hog and admit we're telling them what to do, and instead pretend that it's all in their own hands. It was in their own hands, and they made a decision, but we're now telling them off for making said decision, and that they should make a different one instead. If we're going to do that, why not just take over the decisionmaking completely? As I said, at least it would be more honest than what we're currently doing.I am not moaning they are being dealt with properly, it's the only way. It's the only way for the Taliban, it's the only way for Al Quaida, and it's the only way with Hamas. Some people just want to see the world burn. So burn.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
One article from the very pro-Zionist Ulrike Putz doesn't necessarily give a true and accurate picture of events.
makes a refreshing change from palestinian victim-complex cheerleaders like the BBC.One article from the very pro-Zionist Ulrike Putz doesn't necessarily give a true and accurate picture of events.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
makes a refreshing change from palestinian victim-complex cheerleaders like the BBC.
I'd say when you are a small, isolated and empoverished ghetto like Gaza being attacked by one of the strongest and best equipped militaries in the world - leading to over 1000 civillian casualties - you have some justification in the term 'victim'.makes a refreshing change from palestinian victim-complex cheerleaders like the BBC.
Also this 'secret whispering campaign' is starting to look more like Israeli propaganda tricks. Lots of talk from key supporters in the media, very few actual cases.
Meanwhile - news sources who do cite actually people in Gaza...
UN Envoy Says Attacks Have Strengthened Hamas
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Meanwhile - news sources who do cite actually people in Gaza...
The article cites one only. And he is Irish. Meanwhile - news sources who do cite actually people in Gaza...
Originally Posted by Idaho:
One article from the very pro-Zionist Ulrike Putz doesn't necessarily give a true and accurate picture of events.
Very pro-Zionist? Have you ever read any of her articles? For instance, would you call this one very pro-Zionist? One article from the very pro-Zionist Ulrike Putz doesn't necessarily give a true and accurate picture of events.
Gerroffit, Idaho..
Originally Posted by Idaho:
I'd say when you are a small, isolated and empoverished ghetto like Gaza being attacked by one of the strongest and best equipped militaries in the world - leading to over 1000 civillian casualties - you have some justification in the term 'victim'.
Also this 'secret whispering campaign' is starting to look more like Israeli propaganda tricks. Lots of talk from key supporters in the media, very few actual cases.
Meanwhile - news sources who do cite actually people in Gaza...
UN Envoy Says Attacks Have Strengthened Hamas
The BBC has always been biased towards palestine in the way it presents news coverage.I'd say when you are a small, isolated and empoverished ghetto like Gaza being attacked by one of the strongest and best equipped militaries in the world - leading to over 1000 civillian casualties - you have some justification in the term 'victim'.
Also this 'secret whispering campaign' is starting to look more like Israeli propaganda tricks. Lots of talk from key supporters in the media, very few actual cases.
Meanwhile - news sources who do cite actually people in Gaza...
UN Envoy Says Attacks Have Strengthened Hamas
And a Der-Spiegal news article is now automatically branded an israeli whsipering campaign...........
The UN envoy can say what he likes, i do not hold him/her to be an authority on Hamas military capability.
Probably the best 3 step solution ever:
1. USA has nukes. USA hasn't tested nukes on a real life, densely populated region in a lot of years. THEY WANT TO DO THAT.
2. Send the entire American air force over Gaza+Israel, dropping leaflets that they are going to nuke the entire region in one week. The leaflets exhort anyone who wishes to live, to run like rats and leave everything behind. Phone to every home in Israel and Gaza saying that they are going to nuke the region.
3. Nuke the entire region. No more Israel, no more Gaza, thus no more problems.
Done.
1. USA has nukes. USA hasn't tested nukes on a real life, densely populated region in a lot of years. THEY WANT TO DO THAT.
2. Send the entire American air force over Gaza+Israel, dropping leaflets that they are going to nuke the entire region in one week. The leaflets exhort anyone who wishes to live, to run like rats and leave everything behind. Phone to every home in Israel and Gaza saying that they are going to nuke the region.
3. Nuke the entire region. No more Israel, no more Gaza, thus no more problems.
Done.
Originally Posted by Jolt:
Probably the best 3 step solution ever:
1. USA has nukes. USA hasn't tested nukes on a real life, densely populated region in a lot of years. THEY WANT TO DO THAT.
2. Send the entire American air force over Gaza+Israel, dropping leaflets that they are going to nuke the entire region in one week. The leaflets exhort anyone who wishes to live, to run like rats and leave everything behind. Phone to every home in Israel and Gaza saying that they are going to nuke the region.
3. Nuke the entire region. No more Israel, no more Gaza, thus no more problems.
Done.
While I appreciate the humor, hydrogen weaponry is pretty ghastly. Let us all hope that no such weapons are used on this planet ever again.Probably the best 3 step solution ever:
1. USA has nukes. USA hasn't tested nukes on a real life, densely populated region in a lot of years. THEY WANT TO DO THAT.
2. Send the entire American air force over Gaza+Israel, dropping leaflets that they are going to nuke the entire region in one week. The leaflets exhort anyone who wishes to live, to run like rats and leave everything behind. Phone to every home in Israel and Gaza saying that they are going to nuke the region.
3. Nuke the entire region. No more Israel, no more Gaza, thus no more problems.
Done.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
I'm talking about Palestine, not Hamas. If we're not satisfied that we're getting good returns from our investment, take it over completely so the returns will be in our hands, rather than filtering through via some middlemen. Or else just stop investing, and cut off all contacts. At the moment, we're telling the Palestinians what to do, but we don't want to go the whole hog and admit we're telling them what to do, and instead pretend that it's all in their own hands. It was in their own hands, and they made a decision, but we're now telling them off for making said decision, and that they should make a different one instead. If we're going to do that, why not just take over the decisionmaking completely? As I said, at least it would be more honest than what we're currently doing.
It doesn't matter what we say or do the forces behind Hamas will never allow it, they need the Palestinians to channel the anger of their own population. There is no solution, we can't fix this.I'm talking about Palestine, not Hamas. If we're not satisfied that we're getting good returns from our investment, take it over completely so the returns will be in our hands, rather than filtering through via some middlemen. Or else just stop investing, and cut off all contacts. At the moment, we're telling the Palestinians what to do, but we don't want to go the whole hog and admit we're telling them what to do, and instead pretend that it's all in their own hands. It was in their own hands, and they made a decision, but we're now telling them off for making said decision, and that they should make a different one instead. If we're going to do that, why not just take over the decisionmaking completely? As I said, at least it would be more honest than what we're currently doing.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
One article from the very pro-Zionist Ulrike Putz doesn't necessarily give a true and accurate picture of events.
Ha! You've got nothing - just logical fallacies that don't stand up, as Adrian pointed out, so you bring up talk of 'propaganda conspiracies'.One article from the very pro-Zionist Ulrike Putz doesn't necessarily give a true and accurate picture of events.
What's the matter? Do you not want Hamas to lose support? Surely any reasonable person can see that they are an obstacle for peace.
As for victims - they are victims of their own stupidity. They've fired - what, like 5000 rockets into Israel over the past four years - into the land of a nation with a vastly superior military and the willingness to use it. How has that made life better for them? Why is it people such as yourself refuse to ask any tough questions about Hamas? Instead you assuming they'll go on doing the moronic things they do, as though they actions are above review or criticism?
Israel invaded because of what Hamas has done recently. I've heard the talk about how Hamas is the 'resistance' against mean old Israel. But they are some of the stupidest people on this planet to go about resisting the way they do.
CR
Originally Posted by :
The BBC has always been biased towards palestine in the way it presents news coverage.
How ? The BBC has always been biased towards palestine in the way it presents news coverage.
BTW could you explain yor "no" earlier since Israel fits your bill for annexation , perhaps thats just your bias though which is why you claim the BBC is biased .
Originally Posted by :
Surely any reasonable person can see that they are an obstacle for peace.
Surely any reasonable person can see that most of the Israeli and Palestinian parties are an obstacle to peace .Surely any reasonable person can see that they are an obstacle for peace.
Originally Posted by Jolt:
Probably the best 3 step solution ever:
1. USA has nukes. USA hasn't tested nukes on a real life, densely populated region in a lot of years. THEY WANT TO DO THAT.
2. Send the entire American air force over Gaza+Israel, dropping leaflets that they are going to nuke the entire region in one week. The leaflets exhort anyone who wishes to live, to run like rats and leave everything behind. Phone to every home in Israel and Gaza saying that they are going to nuke the region.
3. Nuke the entire region. No more Israel, no more Gaza, thus no more problems.
Done.
1) so does israel- they actually have a lot of nukes. Probably the best 3 step solution ever:
1. USA has nukes. USA hasn't tested nukes on a real life, densely populated region in a lot of years. THEY WANT TO DO THAT.
2. Send the entire American air force over Gaza+Israel, dropping leaflets that they are going to nuke the entire region in one week. The leaflets exhort anyone who wishes to live, to run like rats and leave everything behind. Phone to every home in Israel and Gaza saying that they are going to nuke the region.
3. Nuke the entire region. No more Israel, no more Gaza, thus no more problems.
Done.
2) have you heard of the Sampson Theory (if i have the name correct)? its the theory that if everyone attacked israel and israel was about to be destroyed, all the israeli nukes would be launched to pre-set coordinates around the globe, like teharan, damascus, cairo, and god knows what other cities. but its just a theory, so....
3) sarcasm is in green, remember?
Originally Posted by hooahguy:
3) sarcasm is in green, remember?
3) sarcasm is in green, remember?
Apparently, I have a sarcastic username...
well, maybe your name is sarcastic, but im referring to green in forum posts, but you may want to talk to Tosa about green names for moderators....
Originally Posted by hooahguy:
you heard of the Sampson Theory (if i have the name correct)? its the theory that if everyone attacked israel and israel was about to be destroyed, all the israeli nukes would be launched to pre-set coordinates around the globe, like teharan, damascus, cairo, and god knows what other cities. but its just a theory, so....
I wish that people who oppose the occupation wouldn't play into the Israeli's hands in this regard. They have an, entirely reasonable historically speaking, ideology that someone will try and wipe them out. If somehow we could remove the belief in that - we'd go far.you heard of the Sampson Theory (if i have the name correct)? its the theory that if everyone attacked israel and israel was about to be destroyed, all the israeli nukes would be launched to pre-set coordinates around the globe, like teharan, damascus, cairo, and god knows what other cities. but its just a theory, so....
Originally Posted by Idaho:
I wish that people who oppose the occupation wouldn't play into the Israeli's hands in this regard. They have an, entirely reasonable historically speaking, ideology that someone will try and wipe them out. If somehow we could remove the belief in that - we'd go far.
are you saying that there arent people who want to wipe jews and israel out? I wish that people who oppose the occupation wouldn't play into the Israeli's hands in this regard. They have an, entirely reasonable historically speaking, ideology that someone will try and wipe them out. If somehow we could remove the belief in that - we'd go far.
jews need to be a bit paranoid. it was the lack of being paranoid that led us to so many jews dieing in the Holocaust. if more jews got scared when Hiter (may his name be erased) rose to power, more could have been saved.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
I wish that people who oppose the occupation wouldn't play into the Israeli's hands in this regard. They have an, entirely reasonable historically speaking, ideology that someone will try and wipe them out. If somehow we could remove the belief in that - we'd go far.
We would be very very far off because that's the reality.I wish that people who oppose the occupation wouldn't play into the Israeli's hands in this regard. They have an, entirely reasonable historically speaking, ideology that someone will try and wipe them out. If somehow we could remove the belief in that - we'd go far.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
How ?
BTW could you explain yor "no" earlier since Israel fits your bill for annexation , perhaps thats just your bias though which is why you claim the BBC is biased .
That is my perception having watched BBC reporting on israel/palestine for many years, a typical example of which is described here:How ?
BTW could you explain yor "no" earlier since Israel fits your bill for annexation , perhaps thats just your bias though which is why you claim the BBC is biased .
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_...k_what_happens
you asked if my comment might equally apply to israel, and i responded;no, indicating that i was talking specifically about palestine.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Surely any reasonable person can see that most of the Israeli and Palestinian parties are an obstacle to peace .
Aye. Surely any reasonable person can see that most of the Israeli and Palestinian parties are an obstacle to peace .
And they have constituencies, vested interests and bureaucratic power to help them stay in the saddle. And if those aren't enough, the 'enemy' can always be counted on to do something profoundly stupid to stoke up the fire and underpin the most radical and useless factions on both sides.
There is even a computer game about these aspects of the conflict: Peacemaker. Among other things, the game demonstrates that positive developments and deals in the Middle East are often blocked by internal divisions of the parties concerned, whereby the radical wings destroy whatever sensible initiative the moderate wings come up with.
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
............demonstrates that positive developments and deals in the Middle East are often blocked by internal divisions of the parties concerned, whereby the radical wings destroy whatever sensible initiative the moderate wings come up with.
OT - one of the reasons i do not like coalition politics, and voting methods that encourage coalition governments unlike first-past-the-post.............demonstrates that positive developments and deals in the Middle East are often blocked by internal divisions of the parties concerned, whereby the radical wings destroy whatever sensible initiative the moderate wings come up with.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO