well who did they take it from? To the people that live(d) there (I am guessing the Palestinians)
Scores die in Israeli air strikes
- Thread starter IhabX7
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
well who did they take it from? To the people that live(d) there (I am guessing the Palestinians)
Paz - bring yourself up to speed with this. You can only but learn.
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/
ps. also came across this little gem (once again, I am an amateur and a complete outsider in this, so forgive me if it's just false-info, etc)
How convenient!
How convenient!
Have seen that before and it doesn't inspire me, feels like baised propoganda, I'd rather a balanced view
There was no question.
Anyway, in brief:
1) there's never been a state called Palestine. The piece of land we're talking about was part of the Ottoman Empire and then, after the Empire fell, it became a British mandate;
2) after WW2 (also on the emotional wake of the Holocaust) the UNO decided to create TWO states that did not exist before: one for the Jews and one for the Arabs of the area;
3) the Jews said "thank you" and started working on making their state run, while the Arab nations around declared war a few hours later - 18 hours I think.
What happens today is pretty much the umpteenth chapter in this story: Israel basically accepting some kind of partition of the land from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, and the (most radical part of the) Arabs who live in Gaza and West Bank desiring to erase Israel from the atlas.
Then there's endless episodes on both sides that can be used to prove the enemy's nastiness, but the general frame is the one I've described.
Interesting.
Who did the British take it from? Im not really understanding you, best is to get an quick update on history Id suggest
It's true, but needs to be put in a proper context. The British made agreements with the Jews and the Arab for them both to have states in Palestine. Basically, we agreed to all their wants so that they supported us in the war against the Ottoman Empire and then screwed them all at Versailles. It was a tactical decision made in the heat of conflict by Lloyd-George's cabinet (many of whom were raving anti-semites) not part of a wider conspiracy.
That's a long story Miha, and would involve a potted history of the First World War.
I personally blame Austria-Hungary for declaring war on Serbia. Damn Hapsburgs.
Cut off your nose to spite your face?
And what have the Iraqis and Arghans got to do with this? Why not call on the Australians, Japanese or Columbians to stop co-operating with the US?
Zionist propaganda....what makes it a likely source above all else?
Thats like me posting a site protraying israeli atrocities and war crimes. And theres hundred of those sites on the internet.
I admire Fearless for being stubborn in his arguments, but they are really are feckin stupid and extremely one-sided.
If Israel went into Gaza and deliberately killed thousands of women and children, officially starting an Palestinian holocaust, then you'd be the kind of person to somehow justify it.
I'd condemn it. That I promise you.
paz, just go online or into a library and do some research. it's pretty good stuff.
I agree. I wish there was more condemnation regards other conflicts. I really don't have an answer your question.
A good guess I suppose would be both the Israelis' and Palestinians with their supporters are doing a great job keeping the emotions running high regards this conflict. I also think people demonstrating know there is a lot more at stake as far as world peace is concerned if we can somehow stop this conflict with the stakes being so high.
Yeah, the news coverage is also a massive part. But I wouldn't want there to be less coverage, as that's the only real check on Israeli power when the Americans are letting them get on with it. I'd just like more coverage of other conflicts, for their own sake and for the sake of that old buzzword, proportionality.
feckin Americans 
this place has been controversial since before the 1920s but since then it seems to have really developed a life of it's own. I don't think it'll end anytime soon as the Jews are not going anywhere and the Arabs aren't either.
this place has been controversial since before the 1920s but since then it seems to have really developed a life of it's own. I don't think it'll end anytime soon as the Jews are not going anywhere and the Arabs aren't either.
feckin Americans
this place has been controversial since before the 1920s but since then it seems to have really developed a life of it's own. I don't think it'll end anytime soon as the Jews are not going anywhere and the Arabs aren't either.
I don't mind going, so 5 Jews moving away is some step forward
Barack Obama got to the heart of the matter in July when he visited Sderot in Israel, a town in range of Hamas missiles. ‘If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep,’ Mr Obama said, ‘I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect the Israelis to do the same thing.’ No less acutely, he observed that it is ‘very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation state, does not recognise your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon and is deeply influenced by other countries’.
As the rest of the world makes one of its periodic moral flyovers to scrutinise the latest round of bloodshed in the Middle East — and none can doubt the terrible human cost of the Israeli assault on Gaza — it is as well to recall the sequence of events that led to the air-strikes. Hamas (which controls the Gaza Strip that Israel quit in August 2005) and Israel had been observing a nervous six-month ceasefire brokered by the Egyptians. Israel offered a resumption of trade with Gaza if the violence ceased completely. It did not. Even at its lowest level, 15 to 20 rockets were still raining down on Israel each month. Hamas also abused the cessation of violence to re-arm itself via the underground tunnels that run from Gaza into Egypt. The Islamist terror group then announced the end of the ceasefire, claiming that Israel’s refusal to resume trade was a demonstration of its bad faith. On Wednesday, 70 rockets were fired on Israel. Three days later, Israel began its assault on Gaza.
Let us be clear: Hamas chose, and chooses, violent confrontation. In this context it is notable that both Egypt and Fatah have laid the blame for the bombardment of the past few days squarely at its door. Of course, the conflict is asymmetric, in the sense that the Qassam rockets deployed by Hamas are not as sophisticated as Israel’s modern ordinance. But proportionality does not require Israel to lower itself to Hamas’s technological level. Proportionality required restraint from Israel until restraint was no longer rational: that point was passed last week, if not before.
The high death toll is self-evidently ghastly. But those who rightly lament the civilian casualties should direct their fury at Hamas, which deliberately embeds its fighters and weapons in the civilian population. Indeed, the callous disregard of Hamas towards those it claims to champion was demonstrated on Friday when one of its rockets misfired and killed two Palestinian schoolgirls.
As the rest of the world makes one of its periodic moral flyovers to scrutinise the latest round of bloodshed in the Middle East — and none can doubt the terrible human cost of the Israeli assault on Gaza — it is as well to recall the sequence of events that led to the air-strikes. Hamas (which controls the Gaza Strip that Israel quit in August 2005) and Israel had been observing a nervous six-month ceasefire brokered by the Egyptians. Israel offered a resumption of trade with Gaza if the violence ceased completely. It did not. Even at its lowest level, 15 to 20 rockets were still raining down on Israel each month. Hamas also abused the cessation of violence to re-arm itself via the underground tunnels that run from Gaza into Egypt. The Islamist terror group then announced the end of the ceasefire, claiming that Israel’s refusal to resume trade was a demonstration of its bad faith. On Wednesday, 70 rockets were fired on Israel. Three days later, Israel began its assault on Gaza.
Let us be clear: Hamas chose, and chooses, violent confrontation. In this context it is notable that both Egypt and Fatah have laid the blame for the bombardment of the past few days squarely at its door. Of course, the conflict is asymmetric, in the sense that the Qassam rockets deployed by Hamas are not as sophisticated as Israel’s modern ordinance. But proportionality does not require Israel to lower itself to Hamas’s technological level. Proportionality required restraint from Israel until restraint was no longer rational: that point was passed last week, if not before.
The high death toll is self-evidently ghastly. But those who rightly lament the civilian casualties should direct their fury at Hamas, which deliberately embeds its fighters and weapons in the civilian population. Indeed, the callous disregard of Hamas towards those it claims to champion was demonstrated on Friday when one of its rockets misfired and killed two Palestinian schoolgirls.
Alright TORM? Cheers for bumping my Berbathread once again!
Last word on this must surely go to this wise contributor to the BBC site:
Last word on this must surely go to this wise contributor to the BBC site:
I'm fine mate! I hope you're not still counting though?
If there is not some almighty great rhyme for Plech's 50,000 post I'll be pretty pissed off.
I'll just be pissed off if he carries out his daft threat to quit on 50k
(Who you gonna call, etc?)
Breaking News (BBC): EU Presidency says Israeli ground invasion is 'defensive not offensive'
Thats a surprise...
The US and EU might as well be a broken record on repeat when it comes to Israeli foreign and domestic policy. "Defensive not offensive" "Provoked, not provoking" etc etc etc.
If you're looking for an issue in which you can show up, say you don't really know much, then eight lines of text later say "case closed" and one side is clearly in the right ....you're in the wrong thread. I recommend you try f7, there might be one about Steven Gerrard or something.
I'll just be pissed off if he carries out his daft threat to quit on 50k
(Who you gonna call, etc?)
I'll reverse his post count.
It's one time I can get one over my Jewish cousins.
Some valid points, but credit where it's due, that whole bit's from The Spectator.
I really didn't think we'd go in on the ground, but I guess there's no choice. The rocket fire has to be stopped, we can no longer have our people under regular fire. No country can. That is the clear target of the operation, and it cannot be stopped until it happens.
Hopefully once this is all over there will be someone in Gaza to pick up the pieces and maybe build something positive for the future.
Hopefully once this is all over there will be someone in Gaza to pick up the pieces and maybe build something positive for the future.
I just read this from from a comments page on news site. Can anyone one confirm if there is likely to be some truth behind the story.
"According to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel "aided Hamas directly the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies. Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official. Israel does not want PLO and does not want Hamas – who does Israel want for a piece partner? Every Palestinian is a terrorist after the atrocities meted out to them."
"According to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. Israel "aided Hamas directly the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)," said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies. Israel's support for Hamas "was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative," said a former senior CIA official. Israel does not want PLO and does not want Hamas – who does Israel want for a piece partner? Every Palestinian is a terrorist after the atrocities meted out to them."
Similar things are written in the Hamas wikipedia page
Even if Hamas are as bad as they're made out to be, even if two neighbours, one with whom they fought a civil war and the other closes borders, blame Hamas as well, I am still baffled to how that can be some sense of justification. I have heard the main justification for the genocide/killings is to try and completely stop Hamas from firing rockets. Fine, protecting yourself is perfectly natural but again baffled at how killing people, whoever they're is the right way to do it. They're saying, we want you to stop attacking us completely, so we'll attack what you love the most. It's like wanting to be friends with someone, but killing their children to achieve it.
Has the world not shown us one small thing, even one thing? Where does violence ever go?
It's a stupid cycle spinning that turns with more and more hatred on each spin until something breaks away and stops the circle, in this case, someone who accepts the fact we're all humans above hate and whatever ethnic reason and longs peace.
I am not particularly saying that it should be the Israelis and though my hearts yearns for it to be the Palestinians, given the development and backing of powers that Israel receives can it not consider stopping it's own violent means at any cost, even if they get attacked? Effectively, they break the circle and receive the support of the millions who don't know what to believe.
I don't know, the more thought I put into this I end up at the point that we, as humans, with all our development in various sectors, have don't nothing but create a structure of corruptness, with a big finger towards politics and the way it works. Going off the topic, communism's a stupid, capitalism is crazy. There's no doubt in my mind it's these structures that create the majority of these events and say that something similar to communism is where peace can be enjoyed; equality. Maybe the world wouldn't have developed so much, though I think it could do more with lives better spent than wasted as a means of whatever pointless war. My main idea thought is perfectness probably cannot be achieved, but we can sure try.
Actually, ignore the last paragraph (though you may have read it already), it blows open to much not fit for this thread.
I can't see how this bombing or ground incursion can help. Even if a scorched earth policy was used in the Gaza the rocket launchers will find home in Jordan. With technology improving by the day it's highly likely the rockets will reach more populated areas of Israel.
The kids who threw stones fifteen years ago have now become rocket launchers. God only knows what weapons both sides will have at their disposal in another fifteen years. The only alternative both sides have would be to somehow find middle ground for peace.
The kids who threw stones fifteen years ago have now become rocket launchers. God only knows what weapons both sides will have at their disposal in another fifteen years. The only alternative both sides have would be to somehow find middle ground for peace.
Regarding your first paragraph, you're talking as if we are TARGETTING children. We don't. Killing innocent civilians has, in the past, brought premature ends to Israel's military operations, and it not something we actively seek. But when you've got enemy headquarters, operatives and such as part of a civilian community, then yes, innocent will be harmed. It's sad, but it IS a war, I'm afraid. Kill or be killed.
Regarding the last line, yeah, we can break the circle of violence and receive the applause of the world, along with more rockets on our heads. No thanks, it's not acceptable. The fact arab leaders have shown great restraint in their reaction towards our actions just goes to show you that they ARE aware of how patient we've been these past few years. But all it brought us was Hamas gaining more rockets, and now being able to fire at broader parts of Israel. We just can't continue to sit, wait and hope anymore.
What's the situation like in the West Bank whilst this is going on in Gaza? I haven't seen or heard much about it.
That, I believe is essential. The youth experience it first hand and won't get the freedom to form a free opinion, how can they with all the violence and suffering. They will grow and from what I saw in many as I grew up, change slowly but in the long run they end up a new person. My best friend at the age of 10 enjoyed the game of football, by the age of 13 he enjoyed his gang and hateful treatment of others. Who knows what the 20 year olds who grew up in those places with violence upon violence turned out to be.
So yeah, as a repetition of what you said, middle ground or the circle continues.
Where, and how would you store arms in such a confined space if you were under occupation. It's not like they have much of an alternative.
Perhaps they should focus more on stockpiling food and supplies than missiles then?
If they were stocking arms that could be used as a genuine response to attack then I would perhaps understand the need. But stocking a load of missiles which will only ever be able to be fired indiscriminately to threaten civilians? That's pretty indefensible to me.
No, in regards to your first line, I consider the child inclusion may be hard to compare but intended to bring things into context. I fully understand what Israel are trying to do, and understand in that civillians will die, with that I fully understand that destroying a mosque at prayer time and killing a dozen or so inside is just wrong. I am not taking sides, you don't need to when a humanitarian crises arises.
And your last section to your 1st paragraph, in no way can you call that sad if you compare it to what you just said. Accepting the war, as if there is no choice is suicide, thought it may be overshadowed by the feeling that letting them attack you is suicide. No, kill or be killed, the phrase you used, if everyone had that mind frame, then consider, that, suicide. Consider it, if everyone had that mind frame and accepted war with no alternative, and I don't need to tell you where it leads.
Now going into the next part, saying rocket attacks is unacceptable and have to be stopped is a direct contradiction to what is going on. You believe, even for a second, that since the peaceful methods didn't not work, and gratitude towards Israel if that did occur as I was too young to know myself, that the violent methods will end the rocket attacks? You can drop a bomb and destroy every single Palestinian, even Muslim and kill them all, but somewhere you'll have friends and others angry. You cannot kill them all without destroying the human race. That, is just an example but is just a path that the the path Israel takes can lead too. So as I am rather interested, where do you believe it will lead?
Another question on something I picked up, you seem to use 'we'
Is this because you are involved somehow, or feel a particular lenience to Israel for whatever reason? Or do you feel as though you have to pick a side? Whatever the reason, and I doubt they're any that I listed, please tell me, again, I'm very interested.
And finally, again towards you and forgive me for that, do you honestly believe that Kill or be killed is the reality and that other means cannot be pursued? Seriously, think and then answer me.
That would be an ideal scenario if they were allowed to live without oppression. Hamas only came into power a few years ago, and according to Israeli sources the rockets started about eight years ago - being forced to live in sub-human conditions started decades ago.
I think they, much like their Israeli opposition, feel the need to defend themselves. A thought, that they believe that not having arms will give their land to Israel and therefore cannot afford the things they should really be getting. Possible hatred acting as the blindfold, again.
Israel, on the other hand, have not much worry as they already have all what they need, not that that's anything bad.
Point is, it again goes back to the hatred, people will want to fight back and everything involved is part of, in the simplest terms, the circle that needs just someone with a important voice to do something along the lines of saying they will not fight no matter what. Surely someone will realise soon enough after all these years that the current methods are not and will never be the solution.