Israel president Shimon Peres accuses Britain of pro-Arab bias

[PestiRed]

If he wants extremes like that, surely a nuclear bomb would be quicker

[lifetime fan]

Well that's proportional.

 

I don't know what all you cardigan wearing, tree huggers are getting in such a flap about.

[setreal]

I haven't worn a cardigan in weeks!

[Jairzinho]

Well that's proportional.

 

I don't know what all you cardigan wearing, tree huggers are getting in such a flap about.

 

You'd have to be a real radical, conspiracy nut to have a problem with Israel.

[Moctezuma]

 

Am I really the one being accused of lacking nuance?

 

 

As a consistent observer of the forums and a sometime poster SD, I do think that this is part of the issue some posters have with you (i.e. a lack of nuance). I’m sure in day to day conversation you’re loquacious and eloquent but on the forum you often seem to miss fairly significant points out that then results in confusion as to your viewpoint. This is in part the nature of the beast of writing on a forum, where it can be difficult to express yourself effectively, especially when people are able to analyse text for a while and then construct arguments that cover all the points made (and perhaps assume those not expressed).

 

Israel and Palestine will always incite greater levels of debate and heat due to the length of the conflict (which has for most on here has lasted their entire lives) but also the human costs.

 

In my personal opinion I wish Israel would reduce/move away from the burden and misery it places on Palestinian lives whether through control of movement, resources and confiscation of land. As I’m sure this would reduce the provocation from which Hamas (understandably) draws support and acts upon, it would also enable pragmatic dialogue to start in an effective way about how to solve some of the problems. This cannot happen whilst Israel effectively keeps rigging the table with the building of new settlements and demonstrably disproportionate force.

 

Looking at it from the knowledge the UK accrued more recently with the IRA the answer is not to target militants amongst civilian populations (ala the excuse for bloody Sunday) but to try and bring those who are the political front of military organisations into the fold.

[TheBitch]

Afternoon clever people, can one of you clever people tell me why the BBC takes the stance it does regarding Israel?

 

Here's Tony Benn sticking it to the BEEB anyway.

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

Tony Benn a good good man. Whether you agree with his politics or not.

[Jairzinho]

And if you don't, you're a fucking cunt.

[Stu Monty]

Still waiting to see if Stronts would condemn those going to the gas chambers for killing civilians if it was all they had in their armory.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Bombing hospitals today.

 

They really are the lowest of the low.

[Strontium]

 

Still waiting to see if Stronts would condemn those going to the gas chambers for killing civilians if it was all they had in their armory.

 

 

It must be nice to have as much free time as you.

 

Can you explain what good it would do to kill civilians in those circumstances?

[Strontium]

 

I pointed out that the word "race" has no meaning.  At no point did I call Islam a race.

 

Are you stupidly misunderstanding a fairly straightforward point or are you dishonestly misrepresenting it?

 

 

Very much a case of you wanting to eat your cake and have it, this. You call me racist, but say there's no such thing as race.

 

I will continue to attack religion, no matter what lies the likes of you spread about me.

[Nunavut Patrick]

Bombing hospitals today.

They really are the lowest of the low.

Not sure what the difference is between shooting airliners out of the sky and dropping bombs on hospitals. One is getting condemnation from all over the West, the other is getting Israel has a right to protect itself. I reckon those Russian freedom fighters were just protecting their airspace....carry on then lads.

 

I suppose Hamas put a bunch os sick people in the hospitals and used them as human shields?

 

 

This Norman Finkelstein dude seems to have a grip on things:

 

My parents -- we lived in Brooklyn, NY, we owned a house -- my parents were difficult people, they didn't get along with anyone. Actually, they didn't even get along with each other. So, on the one side were the Golds and on the other side were the Kasslers and they did not get along with the Golds and they did not get along with the Kasslers, so they built a fence. And it was within their right to build a fence. But, as everybody knows, when you build at fence, at any rate in New York, you first have to hire a surveyor. That's a fact, I'm not joking. You have to hire a surveyor and you have to make sure that fence is right down the line on your property because if that fence is literally one quarter of an inch on the Golds' side or on the Kasslers' side, they have the right to tear it down. Under law, that's it. Now, let's take Israel's wall. What happens if my parents decide to build a fence that's not only on the Kasslers' side but goes right around their swimming pool? Well, some people will begin to wonder "are Mary and Harry Finkelstein trying to protect their property? Or are they trying to steal the Kasslers' swimming pool?"

[Stu Monty]

 

 

 

It must be nice to have as much free time as you.

 

Can you explain what good it would do to kill civilians in those circumstances?

 

No. Answer the question first.

 

You passed my question to answer others, so I posted a reminder. You spent all day arguing about £3.50 on Ebay, stop being a smartarse.

[Hand Shandy]

 

 

 

I will continue to attack religion, no matter what lies the likes of you spread about me.

*wonders how this statement squares with the position he takes on the Jews right to have a state of its own*

[Nunavut Patrick]

It must be nice to have as much free time as you.Can you explain what good it would do to kill civilians in those circumstances?

To be fair to Stu, I had a quick look at the home renovation thread and he seems to spend his days looking for cheap paving stones and dishwashers that do not smell of spunk.

[Strontium]

As a consistent observer of the forums and a sometime poster SD, I do think that this is part of the issue some posters have with you (i.e. a lack of nuance). I’m sure in day to day conversation you’re loquacious and eloquent but on the forum you often seem to miss fairly significant points out that then results in confusion as to your viewpoint. This is in part the nature of the beast of writing on a forum, where it can be difficult to express yourself effectively, especially when people are able to analyse text for a while and then construct arguments that cover all the points made (and perhaps assume those not expressed).

 

Firstly, thank you for your civility. A great many people could learn a lot from you.

 

Secondly, I do wish people wouldn't assume that because I don't address every single activity in stultifying detail, this means I tacitly approve of something. People know I'm a liberal and a democrat, they ought to apply logic and know that it goes without saying that I'm not going to approve of bombing seven kinds of shite out of Gaza.

 

 

 

Israel and Palestine will always incite greater levels of debate and heat due to the length of the conflict (which has for most on here has lasted their entire lives) but also the human costs.

 

I think you're being generous here. I don't think longevity has anything to do with why people focus on the misdeeds of Israel when dozens of other countries are as bad or worse.

 

In my personal opinion I wish Israel would reduce/move away from the burden and misery it places on Palestinian lives whether through control of movement, resources and confiscation of land. As I’m sure this would reduce the provocation from which Hamas (understandably) draws support and acts upon, it would also enable pragmatic dialogue to start in an effective way about how to solve some of the problems. This cannot happen whilst Israel effectively keeps rigging the table with the building of new settlements and demonstrably disproportionate force.

 

Looking at it from the knowledge the UK accrued more recently with the IRA the answer is not to target militants amongst civilian populations (ala the excuse for bloody Sunday) but to try and bring those who are the political front of military organisations into the fold.

 

 

I agree with every word of that. Obviously.

[Strontium]

 

No. Answer the question first.

 

You passed my question to answer others, so I posted a reminder. You spent all day arguing about £3.50 on Ebay, stop being a smartarse.

 

I didn't have time to answer your question this morning, genuinely.

 

I've already said don't approve of killing civilians, and it should be avoided at all costs. Is that not unambiguous enough? The only reason I asked you a question is that I wasn't sure if I was missing something.

 

 

*wonders how this statement squares with the position he takes on the Jews right to have a state of its own*

 

Because Jews aren't just a religion. In keeping with Zionism's secular origins, Israel is a state built on Jewish ethnicity (ie Jewish blood) and not Jewish religion. Which is why a heathen like me can go and live there.

 

I have no more truck with those religious Jews who think the entirety of Greater Israel should be theirs than I do with those Islamists who think the same.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

 

 

Very much a case of you wanting to eat your cake and have it, this. You call me racist, but say there's no such thing as race.

 

I will continue to attack religion, no matter what lies the likes of you spread about me.

Jesus wept.

 

As I've already explained, there is no such thing as race, not in any scientific, objective sense.  It is an ill-defined social construct, used to lazily lump together people with broadly similar external physical features (often to then ascribe negative personality traits to them).

 

There is such a thing as racism, as I have also already explained.  And when a person claims that millions of members of an ethnic or religious group are incapable of non-violence, that is a racist statement and that person is a bigoted racist cunt.

 

(And don't flatter yourself that I would waste time "spreading lies about" you.  When you're being a cunt, I tell you to your... avatar.  The only people who have seen me call you racist are the people on this thread and they have also seen the reason I said it.)

[Strontium]

 

There is such a thing as racism, as I have also already explained.  And when a person claims that millions of members of an ethnic or religious group are incapable of non-violence, that is a racist statement and that person is a bigoted racist cunt.

 

 

Not that I agree with your premise - I think any person should be able to criticise members of a religion if the evidence is there to support that criticism - but you're twisting my words.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Because Jews aren't just a religion. In keeping with Zionism's secular origins, Israel is a state built on Jewish ethnicity (ie Jewish blood) and not Jewish religion. Which is why a heathen like me can go and live there.

 

I have no more truck with those religious Jews who think the entirety of Greater Israel should be theirs than I do with those Islamists who think the same.

In Dogworld, "Jews aren't just a religion" therefore any anti-Semitism is racist.  Do you agree?  (You're spot-on, if you do.)

 

However, Muslims (apparently) are "just a religion", so abusing them is fair game, apparently. "The end."

 

Keep congratulating yourself on that commendable consistency.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

 

 

Not that I agree with your premise - I think any person should be able to criticise members of a religion if the evidence is there to support that criticism - but you're twisting my words.

In post 346 I might be twisting your words a bit.

 

But there's no denying that you said Muslims don't do non-violence.   

[Stu Monty]

I didn't have time to answer your question this morning, genuinely.

 

I've already said don't approve of killing civilians, and it should be avoided at all costs. Is that not unambiguous enough? The only reason I asked you a question is that I wasn't sure if I was missing something.

 

 

Nope. That isn't. Not with you saying "at all costs".

 

What they might get out of it is the same thing that killing civilians often brings which is that the taste for war from the civilian population lessens. It's one of the reasons civilians were deliberately incinerated with bombs and nukes. To end the appetite for conflict.

 

Give someone in Belsen a button to incinerate Berlin and he'd probably press it. I'd not condemn him for that. In the corner and on your last legs you are constrained less by morality, for me.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

 

 

Not that I agree with your premise - I think any person should be able to criticise members of a religion if the evidence is there to support that criticism - but you're twisting my words.

And there's the rub.

 

If you're talking about a religion that spans the globe, with many different sects, no central hierarchy and over a billion adherents, then you're going to be hard-pressed to find evidence of any character trait that you claim fits them all.

[Strontium]

In Dogworld, "Jews aren't just a religion" therefore any anti-Semitism is racist.  Do you agree?  (You're spot-on, if you do.)

 

However, Muslims (apparently) are "just a religion", so abusing them is fair game, apparently. "The end."

 

Keep congratulating yourself on that commendable consistency.

 

Jews aren't just a religion. Jews are also a people united by common ancestry, many of whom aren't even religious. That's a fact.

 

Feel free to deny the fact if you want, although you'll excuse me if I don't join you. After all, when being liquidated by someone or other in the past, pointing out that you're not Jewish because you don't attend synagogue or say prayers hasn't proven an effective deterrent to being liquidated.

 

Islam is a religion, and only a religion. Is it abuse to say that Islam has no great tradition of non-violence? According to you, it seems to be evidence of racist bigotry. I respectfully disagree. I think you are talking shit.

 

And there's the rub.

 

If you're talking about a religion that spans the globe, with many different sects, no central hierarchy and over a billion adherents, then you're going to be hard-pressed to find evidence of any character trait that you claim fits them all.

Oh well, let's see:

 

1) Belief in Allah

2) Belief that Muhammad is Allah's messenger

 

So there's two right off the bat.