Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[seafoid]

Much simpler for you.

The fact that he actually engaged in a discussion and tried to put forward answers to the things I asked was a start.  Not giving condescending answers or posting articles which are not relevant to the immediate topic under discussion also helped.

Deiseach also introduced a few interesting viewpoints IIRC.  Seafoid, on the other hand, totally ignored any of the direct questions and concentrated on posting links to articles.  But hey, that's just my opinion. Like I said earlier - I don't speak for any other posters.

It's all there for you to read if you can bother yourself.

Can someone explain the problem with posting links to articles ? 
Are we supposed to formulate opinions on everything from scratch ?
Or just whatever is on BBC or RTE with sufficient balance included?
Is it like being born into a Fianna Fail family ?

Itchy's position is

a) you didn't answer the questions,  even if you did
b) you can't back up your point with any other reference

That's nuts

[seafoid]

Good god lads it's just as well that GHD and Seafoid aren't battling for the hearts and minds of the board members.  You two really are the most infuriating posters on this board - you don't engage in debate if it looks like you are going to have to answer tough questions and endlessly post articles which, like I have said before, are maybe informative but are blatantly one-sided.

I can't speak for any other posters but the antics of you two alone makes it hard to support your point of view at times.

Franko, throughout this thread I have given my opinion on numerous occasions, and answered any questions put to me. As I have said before, the articles I post are informative and don't appear to often in the MSM. If you feel my support for Palestine is one sided, then you are right, and i make no apologies for it. The truth for some is hard to take.

Firstly I want to start by saying that, broadly speaking, I agree with most of what you say on here (especially with regard to Israel's position in Palestine).

The Israel = BAD / Palestine = GOOD black and white scenario is not as simple as you guys and your articles make out.  When someone challenges you about it the answers dry up - or we get something like the bullshit answer which Seafoid gave me above which so neatly proved what I was saying.

seafoid's point about Myra Hindley is flippant but it serves a serious purpose. You accuse him of being "blatantly one-sided". Of course he's one-sided on the issue of Israel v Palestine and he gives chapter and verse on why he is one-sided. I can assure you that if someone accused me of being "blatantly one-sided" with regards to Hillsborough, my response would not be so polite.

My problem is that we are constantly being told by the pacifists that Syria is a complicated issue that you can't just paint as Assad=BAD Rebels= Good.


Yet when the Isreali's take a shit it's a immediately as Isreal= the devils, palestine= innocents. You just can't have it both ways.

+1 - but don't dare ask for an explanation why.

I told Itchy 3 times that a peace conference is required and I even added a link from someone but no, it's no good, we have to bomb the shit out of Syria.
It's not rocket science. Or maybe it is.

[deiseach]

Well it's either you go trawling back through or I do.  And as it's you that's actually looking for the info I'd venture that it's your bag.

So he has to go looking for something that he can't be sure is there?

Erm... yes??

Is this normally how you debate with people? I said something but if you want to read it you have to find it without any help from me. And you have the cheek to accuse seafoid of 'deflecting'. Crikey.

[Franko]

Well it's either you go trawling back through or I do.  And as it's you that's actually looking for the info I'd venture that it's your bag.

So he has to go looking for something that he can't be sure is there?

Erm... yes??

Is this normally how you debate with people? I said something but if you want to read it you have to find it without any help from me. And you have the cheek to accuse seafoid of 'deflecting'. Crikey.

You are clutching at straws here.  I told him what I said and I told him where he could find it if he wanted to look it up.  He said he wasn't looking it up because he hadn't time.  I'd venture that that involves quite a bit of 'help' on my behalf.

[deiseach]

My problem is that we are constantly being told by the pacifists that Syria is a complicated issue that you can't just paint as Assad=BAD Rebels= Good.


Yet when the Isreali's take a shit it's a immediately as Isreal= the devils, palestine= innocents. You just can't have it both ways.

A post so full of strawmen that it's hard to know where to begin. Who are the pacifists? Do they describe themselves as such? Do they really object every time the Israelis "take a shit"? I presume this is a metaphor, but for what exactly? What is it the Israelis do that is analagous with taking a shit that causes the the 'pacifists' such angst? How would you react if someone dismissed the objections of Nationalists in the North to their situation under British rule in the same terms? "Oh, the Finucane family, the RUC take a shit and it's immediately Brits = the devils, Taigs = innocents." Why can't you have it both ways? It's perfectly possible for one situation to be complicated, like the civil war now taking place in Syria, and for a different situation to be simple, like the oppression of the Palestinians by Israel. Of course, you may not agree that that's the way things are in the respective conflicts, but you can't dismiss one person's point of view by saying that you must think everything is simple or everything is complicated or you're a hypocrite.

[deiseach]

You are clutching at straws here.  I told him what I said and I told him where he could find it if he wanted to look it up.  He said he wasn't looking it up because he hadn't time.  I'd venture that that involves quite a bit of 'help' on my behalf.

He's looked and the evidence is scant, at best. Maybe he's missed it. Or maybe it isn't there.

[Franko]

I then went and had a look and put into a completely separate post my point of view on thew matter.  I answered, with examples, exactly the question he asked me.

But maybe you missed it.  Or maybe you wanted to miss it.

[deiseach]

I then went and had a look and put into a completely separate post my point of view on thew matter.  I answered, with examples, exactly the question he asked me.

But maybe you missed it.  Or maybe you wanted to miss it.

I did miss your response, my bad. Fair enough.

[give her dixie]

Currently as Egypt and Syria are in turmoil, the situation is Gaza is dire. Following the Military Coup a few weeks ago in Egypt, the noose has tightened on them. The Military bulldozers have been hard at work destroying the tunnels that provided so much to the 1.7 million residents, half of whom are children. Fuel, food, medicine, and other household basics flowed through these tunnels as Israel closed the doors, locked them up, and put them on a diet.

I was down a tunnel that brought in cylinder's of gas. The tunnel was over 600m long, and a conveyor belt powered by an electric motor brought gas to the Strip. Other tunnels operate the same way. What struck me most is that in todays world, people have to dig tunnels and smuggle what it takes to survive, while the world looks the other way.

Currently they are reduced to 6 hours of electricity per day, and the hum of generators has stopped. They relied on the fuel from the tunnels to power them. Vital medicines are at a very low level, and just getting by is a daily struggle for most. Egypt are behaving exactly like the Israeli's at present. The fact that their Military are both funded by the US explains things.....

While the border crossing between Egypt and Israel remains open 24 hours a day with little delay, the Rafah crossing with Gaza is closed most of the time. Only people with medical permits are allowed to cross, and students currently looking to travel to university elsewhere are not allowed to cross. Only on sporadic days are ordinary people allowed permission to cross, and that is after long delays.

Since the signing of the ceasefire last November, there has been over 200 recorded breaches by Israel, and several people have been killed. Still to this day the Drones hover overhead, and when the lights go out, F16's like to fly over head so fast that they create sonic booms. These sound like explosions, and immediately frightens the children. The navy like to play their part and they fire off long bursts toward the shoreline.

All this tightening of the siege is designed to weaken and crush Hamas. Nothing else. One of the main reasons there was a coup in Egypt was the close ties the Muslim Brotherhood had with Hamas, and the fear that they would rock the boat for Israel. Couple this with the PA and the farce they are involved in with John Kerry and Israel called "Peace Talks", and it doesn't look to good at present.

From the minute Hamas were elected, the powers that be have set out to crush them. They have thrown the kitchen sink at them, but still they prevail. Punishing an entire population in the process is not only illegal under law, it is a gross insult to humanity.

[theskull1]

Do I have to write it on the board every time my opinion changes?

Dont belive this needs to be spelt out but ... the answer is Yes. If you want proper dialogue then you have a responsibility to acknowledge if something has shifted your position and outline what that is. How is anyone to know otherwise ?

I'm telling you that the arguments put forward by those mentioned changed my stance slightly on the issue - and I had quick a look back - Deiseach's point obout nuclear weapons was one of the ones which I definitely took on board.

When I first started reading this thread I thought that pretty much the only course of action was some sort of physical intervention.  Even before Russia's move a few days ago I was given to thinking that that might no longer be the right move.  However, it wasn't the standard Seafoid move of posting an article from the Guardian/condescending remark/ignoring of my questions that did it.

Are you happy now?

Well you haven't replied with any detailed explanation of the particular arguments that have swayed your position. You saying you we're swayed isn't explaining anything. Please elucidate why you now think (sorry ....why you thought before the "Russia move")  that military intervention was the wrong move? What points put forward has made you think a different way?

[Franko]

Do I have to write it on the board every time my opinion changes?

Dont belive this needs to be spelt out but ... the answer is Yes. If you want proper dialogue then you have a responsibility to acknowledge if something has shifted your position and outline what that is. How is anyone to know otherwise ?

I'm telling you that the arguments put forward by those mentioned changed my stance slightly on the issue - and I had quick a look back - Deiseach's point obout nuclear weapons was one of the ones which I definitely took on board.

When I first started reading this thread I thought that pretty much the only course of action was some sort of physical intervention.  Even before Russia's move a few days ago I was given to thinking that that might no longer be the right move.  However, it wasn't the standard Seafoid move of posting an article from the Guardian/condescending remark/ignoring of my questions that did it.

Are you happy now?

Well you haven't replied with any detailed explanation of the particular arguments that have swayed your position. You saying you we're swayed isn't explaining anything. Please elucidate why you now think (sorry ....why you thought before the "Russia move")  that military intervention was the wrong move? What points put forward has made you think a different way?

This is getting tedious.  See bold for one example.

[Franko]

Do I have to write it on the board every time my opinion changes?

Dont belive this needs to be spelt out but ... the answer is Yes. If you want proper dialogue then you have a responsibility to acknowledge if something has shifted your position and outline what that is. How is anyone to know otherwise ?

I'm telling you that the arguments put forward by those mentioned changed my stance slightly on the issue - and I had quick a look back - Deiseach's point obout nuclear weapons was one of the ones which I definitely took on board.

When I first started reading this thread I thought that pretty much the only course of action was some sort of physical intervention.  Even before Russia's move a few days ago I was given to thinking that that might no longer be the right move.  However, it wasn't the standard Seafoid move of posting an article from the Guardian/condescending remark/ignoring of my questions that did it.

Are you happy now?

Well you haven't replied with any detailed explanation of the particular arguments that have swayed your position. You saying you we're swayed isn't explaining anything. Please elucidate why you now think (sorry ....why you thought before the "Russia move")  that military intervention was the wrong move? What points put forward has made you think a different way?

Because I told you it had.

[theskull1]

.... I presume the post you're referring to is this one

I would lean towards making some intervention against Assad for the message of doing nothing will be heard much further away than Syria.

If I were a brutal, anti-American dictator, the message I would get from any unilateral intervention is to get some nuclear weapons, pronto.

Deiseach's point obout nuclear weapons was one of the ones which I definitely took on board.

This is getting tedious.  See bold for one example.

This is getting tedious.  See bold for one example.

You never explained what you've taken on board for starters nor did you at any stage reiterate it when arguing against those that may not have considered the point you were enlightened to. I'm only looking to understand your position but you don't seem to want to clarify it for everybody. Deadly bit of dodging going on and I have no clue why

[Franko]

What exactly are you getting at here?  I could be wrong but it seems to me that you are arguing the absurd derivative point that it's not my opinion that is wrong but it's that I don't actually have the opinion I say I do.  Is that right?

PS.
You do realise that I clarified my position a few posts back.  You seem to have a bit more time on your hands than you did earlier so I'm sure you could stretch to reading the past couple of pages again.  This is my opinion.  I've explained how I arrived at it and how some posters on here caused me to change my initial viewpoint.  What more do you want me to say?

I'm bored.

[seafoid]

Currently as Egypt and Syria are in turmoil, the situation is Gaza is dire. Following the Military Coup a few weeks ago in Egypt, the noose has tightened on them. The Military bulldozers have been hard at work destroying the tunnels that provided so much to the 1.7 million residents, half of whom are children. Fuel, food, medicine, and other household basics flowed through these tunnels as Israel closed the doors, locked them up, and put them on a diet.

I was down a tunnel that brought in cylinder's of gas. The tunnel was over 600m long, and a conveyor belt powered by an electric motor brought gas to the Strip. Other tunnels operate the same way. What struck me most is that in todays world, people have to dig tunnels and smuggle what it takes to survive, while the world looks the other way.

Currently they are reduced to 6 hours of electricity per day, and the hum of generators has stopped. They relied on the fuel from the tunnels to power them. Vital medicines are at a very low level, and just getting by is a daily struggle for most. Egypt are behaving exactly like the Israeli's at present. The fact that their Military are both funded by the US explains things.....

While the border crossing between Egypt and Israel remains open 24 hours a day with little delay, the Rafah crossing with Gaza is closed most of the time. Only people with medical permits are allowed to cross, and students currently looking to travel to university elsewhere are not allowed to cross. Only on sporadic days are ordinary people allowed permission to cross, and that is after long delays.

Since the signing of the ceasefire last November, there has been over 200 recorded breaches by Israel, and several people have been killed. Still to this day the Drones hover overhead, and when the lights go out, F16's like to fly over head so fast that they create sonic booms. These sound like explosions, and immediately frightens the children. The navy like to play their part and they fire off long bursts toward the shoreline.

All this tightening of the siege is designed to weaken and crush Hamas. Nothing else. One of the main reasons there was a coup in Egypt was the close ties the Muslim Brotherhood had with Hamas, and the fear that they would rock the boat for Israel. Couple this with the PA and the farce they are involved in with John Kerry and Israel called "Peace Talks", and it doesn't look to good at present.

From the minute Hamas were elected, the powers that be have set out to crush them. They have thrown the kitchen sink at them, but still they prevail. Punishing an entire population in the process is not only illegal under law, it is a gross insult to humanity.

Israel would like all of the neighbours to be reduced to a state like Gaza, to be picked off at will with the approval of the outside world.
Taking Assad out was going to be the first stage. Hezbollah would be next and then Iran.
But it seems as though the American people are sick of Israel's wars.