Israel - A Rant

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog said:

It's not especially laborious, not now the search function and multi-quote works really well. It took me about three minutes to assemble all those comments upthread. But, tell you what, I will do the hard work of dredging if people can just give me a vague inkling. I mean, they must have at least a vague idea of what I'm supposed to have said, given they're basing their entire opinion upon it.

 

I want to you to look for and quote here every instance of you confirming that you don't support either Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or Corbyn since you joined the site. I still have my doubts.

[Strontium]

14 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

The overwhelming evidence is the body of work. The hundreds of posts related to the topic. The difference in tone when describing actions carried out by Israel and actions carried out by Palestine, the number of articles/criticisms posted about each side of the situation, etc, etc. It's precisely why I alluded to the fact that anyone with a decent grasp of the English language can see your angle. They can see what you think about the topic. It isn't balanced, and you know this. In fact, it's this mind-numbingly tedious pretense from you that is most, well, mind-numbingly tedious. 

 

I am sure we've gone over this ground many times before.

 

I have definitely explained why I use different terminology for actions carried out by Israel versus those carried out by eg Hamas (Not Palestine. Hamas aren't Palestine.)

 

On ‎01‎/‎08‎/‎2014 at 16:43, Strontium Dog said:

This is to do with legalities, isn't it. Legal armies capture prisoners of war. Criminals kidnap people. The Israeli army is the legitimate armed forces of a sovereign nation. Hamas is an armed militia proscribed as a terrorist organisation by, among others, the EU, the USA, Canada, Egypt and Jordan.

 

Now, if a democratic Palestinian state with a legitimate army ever arises out of the ashes, then it will absolutely be appropriate to use the same tone as I do with the legitimate army of Israel.

 

This is nothing to do with personal sympathies, but legal realities. For instance, I am sympathetic to the cause of Irish reunification, but I would still have no hesitation in describing the IRA as an illegitimate terrorist organisation. Even though I am sympathetic to their aims. You see how this works?

 

So far as posting articles and criticisms is concerned, I can't say I recall posting many articles on the topic. Nevertheless, I do freely admit to posting arguments from one side for discussion when the other side of the argument has already been posted, because I feel that both sides of an argument should be represented, in the interests of balance. For instance, when someone posted a Guardian article saying that Israeli troops shot someone clearly identified as a medic, I posted a video which showed said medic removing his vest and throwing missiles at troops. Why would anyone have an issue with that, unless they had an interest in perpetuating an untrue account? It's really weird.

[aRdja]

11 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

 

I am sure we've gone over this ground many times before.

 

I have definitely explained why I use different terminology for actions carried out by Israel versus those carried out by eg Hamas (Not Palestine. Hamas aren't Palestine.)

 

 

Now, if a democratic Palestinian state with a legitimate army ever arises out of the ashes, then it will absolutely be appropriate to use the same tone as I do with the legitimate army of Israel.

 

This is nothing to do with personal sympathies, but legal realities. For instance, I am sympathetic to the cause of Irish reunification, but I would still have no hesitation in describing the IRA as an illegitimate terrorist organisation. Even though I am sympathetic to their aims. You see how this works?

 

So far as posting articles and criticisms is concerned, I can't say I recall posting many articles on the topic. Nevertheless, I do freely admit to posting arguments from one side for discussion when the other side of the argument has already been posted, because I feel that both sides of an argument should be represented, in the interests of balance. For instance, when someone posted a Guardian article saying that Israeli troops shot someone clearly identified as a medic, I posted a video which showed said medic removing his vest and throwing missiles at troops. Why would anyone have an issue with that, unless they had an interest in perpetuating an untrue account? It's really weird.

I don’t see why you have to justify your stance if I’m honest. You’re obviously pro-Israel for one reason or another. That’s not a particularly unique or controversial stance. Most Americans are pro-Israel for example. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Legal reality. Well, I’m going to have to reply to that. You’re quite mistaken in your post. 

[Strontium]

15 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

I don’t see why you have to justify your stance if I’m honest. You’re obviously pro-Israel for one reason or another. That’s not a particularly unique or controversial stance. Most Americans are pro-Israel for example. 

 

"Pro-Israel" is not nuanced enough to describe my position as it implies uncritical support of everything Israel does. I am pro Israel's existence and pro Israel's right to self defence. But I am against the current Israeli government, against Israeli settlement in the Palestinian territories, and against the excessive use of force by Israeli troops.

[moof]

2 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

"Pro-Israel" is not nuanced enough to describe my position as it implies uncritical support of everything Israel does. I am pro Israel's existence and pro Israel's right to self defence. But I am against the current Israeli government, against Israeli settlement in the Palestinian territories, and against the excessive use of force by Israeli troops.

So, you’re saying your position isn’t materially different from anybody else on here? Glad that’s cleared up 

[Strontium]

Just now, moof said:

So, you’re saying your position isn’t materially different from anybody else on here? Glad that’s cleared up 

 

I'd say it's materially different from those people here who think Israel should be destroyed. I'd say it's materially different from those people here who think Jews aren't Semites and are therefore not indigenous to the region. But no, I'm not a million miles away from most people, I think, despite claims otherwise.

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

I'd say it's materially different from those people here who think Israel should be destroyed. I'd say it's materially different from those people here who think Jews aren't Semites and are therefore not indigenous to the region. But no, I'm not a million miles away from most people, I think, despite claims otherwise.

I’d say I’ve heard people express those opinions about twice in the last 10 years on here. It does make me wonder what we disagree so profoundly and so regularly when we have practically the same views.?

[Jairzinho]

2 hours ago, viRdjil said:

I don’t see why you have to justify your stance if I’m honest. You’re obviously pro-Israel for one reason or another. That’s not a particularly unique or controversial stance. Most Americans are pro-Israel for example. 

Exactly. 

[Red Phoenix]

Anniversary of the start of the Gaza border protests today, 2 dead already and over 100 injured.

 

Have been dreading this day for a bit now as it was obvious that people would be killed and injured. There's nothing I could write here that could explain how sick I am at all of this at the moment either so won't even try.

[Numero Veinticinco]

4 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Anniversary of the start of the Gaza border protests today, 2 dead already and over 100 injured.

 

Have been dreading this day for a bit now as it was obvious that people would be killed and injured. There's nothing I could write here that could explain how sick I am at all of this at the moment either so won't even try.

It's going to happen whether or not you worry about it. I suggest you don't, mate. 

[Red Phoenix]

8 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

It's going to happen whether or not you worry about it. I suggest you don't, mate. 

 

Yeah I'm trying not to as much. If Palestinians have the courage to stand at that border fence knowing they could be shot and killed at any moment then my issues pale in comparison anyway. Maybe I should try and have even a fraction of that courage instead, and hope things eventually get better as they do.

[Red Phoenix]

6 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

that border fence

 

Sorry, that should just be : that fence.

 

Thanks to a tweet from Mehdi Hasan and then reading up on it more. People can call it the green line, armistice demarcation line, border, fence, or pick whatever they want when they want. No borders, permanent or temporary between Palestine and Israel have ever actually been agreed on by law, I'm going with fence.

 

And thanks to the media for helping us all with this too. The media would clearly confuse people if they just referred to it as a fence, and I get that. They should maybe try something like "apartheid fence" to help people learn.

[Numero Veinticinco]

Not sure they’re reading. 

[Red Phoenix]

9 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Not sure they’re reading. 

 

Yeah sorry, was a bit sleep deprived and angry when I wrote that yesterday, and wondering how many more people were going to get killed.

[SammyAftershave]

On 28/03/2019 at 13:25, Strontium Dog said:

 

No, the problem is that people prefer to cling to their own faith-based beliefs rather than taking the actual facts for what they are, even when presented with overwhelming evidence.

Here's some actual facts and overwhelming evidence for you to consider you disingenuous two-faced twat:

 

More than 6,000 unarmed demonstrators were shot by military snipers, week after week at the protest sites by the separation fence.

The Commission investigated every killing at the designated demonstration sites by the Gaza separation fence on official protest days. The investigation covered the period from the start of the protests until 31 December 2018. 189 Palestinians were killed during the demonstrations inside this period. The Commission found that Israeli Security Forces killed 183 of these protesters with live ammunition. Thirty-five of these fatalities were children, while three were clearly marked paramedics, and two were clearly marked journalists.

According to the Commission’s data analysis, the Israeli Security Forces injured 6,106 Palestinians with live ammunition at the protest sites during this period. Another 3,098 Palestinians were injured by bullet fragmentation, rubber-coated metal bullets or by hits from tear gas canisters. Four Israeli soldiers were injured at the demonstrations. Four Israeli soldiers were injured at the demonstrations. One Israeli soldier was killed on a protest day but outside the protest sites.

 

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=24226&LangID=E

[Strontium]

Are you capable of discussing anything without the unprovoked personal abuse?

[SammyAftershave]

On 27/03/2019 at 21:56, Strontium Dog said:

 

I condemn all disproportionate violence, you stupid ignorant fuck.

Like this you mean?

[Strontium]

That wasn't unprovoked, a false accusation had been made against me.

[Numero Veinticinco]

30 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

That wasn't unprovoked, a false accusation had been made against me.

FFS, man. 

[Strontium]

11 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

FFS, man. 

 

The personal abuse was in the PMs. 

[Bjornebye]

4 hours ago, SammyAftershave said:

Like this you mean?

Hahahahahaha is right. 

[Bjornebye]

Thought I was blocked Jacob Rees Mong ? How did you fail to be  an MP when the qualification is to be a lying snivelling squirmy snake bastard?

 

I'd vote for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the head of the Antelope party before they cross the river in the Serengeti. 

[Bjornebye]

Revenge Negged again. Thought I was blocked. I have now found the lie that he promised he would leave the forum for. 

 

By bye tory son muppet 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

Revenge Negged again. Thought I was blocked. I have now found the lie that he promised he would leave the forum for. 

 

By bye tory son muppet 

This is going to sound crazy, I know, but maybe stop winding the fucker up every two minutes? You know what he's like and how he can get. It's at the point now where... it's just not worth it for either of you.