Middle East landscape rapidly changing

[Mike Sheehy]

Just look at him. Flailing around, inventing stories about alleged slurs, trying every tactic in the book to divert attention. All those cut'n'pastes over the last 10 years and who was behind it all ? A low grade demagogue who can barely string together two coherent sentences in defence of his vicious creed. Its like when the curtain was pulled back in the wizard of Oz !

Nevertheless, we have made progress. In the midst of all the insults and obfuscation he did finally admit that jews do have some basic rights

The Jews deserve a state.

Jews do have the right to defend themselves.

It's shocking that it took 10 years, 58 pages of cut'n'paste and the determined efforts of some posters to draw him out but we finally have something to work with.

So, now that Seafoid accepts that jews have the right to defend themselves he needs elaborate on what that means in practice. Otherwise his words are just weasel words. If missiles are fired into Israel, and it is entitled to defend itself, what form should that defence take ?

It should be legal and mandated by the UN.

And be proportionate

Yet none of you will say what is proportionate ?

Once again if missiles are launched into Israel from gaza what is a proportionate response ? I will go even further and give you some options ...

a) launching the same number of missiles back into Gaza with the same lack of discrimination shown by those that fired into Israel
b) attempting precision strikes based on intelligence but with the acceptance that there will be civilian casualties
c) a ground offensive into gaza to attempt to apprend those responsible for the strikes
d) None of the above because you think Israel has no right to self defence

any other options ?

Haveaharp...any response ? You said the Israeli response should be proportionate. Perhaps you can elaborate with more detail since the others have ducked the question as usual.

Operation cast lead - about 1200 Palestinians dead v 13 Israeli deaths some of which was friendly fire. I wouldn't call that proportionate.The UN found that the Israelis targeted the people of Gaza as a whole and not those who were firing rockets at them. The use of human shields and white phosphorus was disgraceful.

Right, you have said what is not proportionate. Now tell us what IS proportionate.

I wonder if you have the guts ?

[muppet]

Just look at him. Flailing around, inventing stories about alleged slurs, trying every tactic in the book to divert attention. All those cut'n'pastes over the last 10 years and who was behind it all ? A low grade demagogue who can barely string together two coherent sentences in defence of his vicious creed. Its like when the curtain was pulled back in the wizard of Oz !

Nevertheless, we have made progress. In the midst of all the insults and obfuscation he did finally admit that jews do have some basic rights

The Jews deserve a state.

Jews do have the right to defend themselves.

It's shocking that it took 10 years, 58 pages of cut'n'paste and the determined efforts of some posters to draw him out but we finally have something to work with.

So, now that Seafoid accepts that jews have the right to defend themselves he needs elaborate on what that means in practice. Otherwise his words are just weasel words. If missiles are fired into Israel, and it is entitled to defend itself, what form should that defence take ?

It should be legal and mandated by the UN.

UN charters provide the right of countries to engage in self-defence. You, and others, think this right does not apply to Israel. That is the fundamental problem with most of the commentary on this thread.

You have to resort to lying for your argument.

You were caught on in your little lie (that the Israeli right to self defence is not mandated by the UN) and you then accuse me of lying for catching you out.
You are a joke.

Another lie.

Show me where I said "that the Israeli right to self defence is not mandated by the UN".

you said that Israeli self-defence "should be legal and mandated" by the UN implying that Israeli self-defence is  somehow NOT already legal and mandated. You know full well it is legal and mandated, hence you are a liar.

Are you really that stupid?

We are hypothetically talking about what would be an appropriate response to a hypothetical attack. An unrealistic hypothetical attack at that.

I suggested, in my opinion,  a response that would be legal and mandated by the UN.

You then put words in my mouth, make up something that I didn't say and accuse me of lying because of it. You then claimed to catch me out in all of this.

For someone who demands answers to questions all the time, you really should trying reading just the answer in front of you and not what your twisted mind tells you. What is the point in discussing anything with you?

[theskull1]

Youve pretty much captured his argumentation technique.

Problem is he believes everything he thinks you've said so ...the mans impossible to converse with.

[Count 10]

Youve pretty much captured his argumentation technique.

Problem is he believes everything he thinks you've said so ...the mans impossible to converse with.

An asshole

[seafoid]

Youve pretty much captured his argumentation technique.

Problem is he believes everything he thinks you've said so ...the mans impossible to converse with.

He's a troll. He keeps coming back to the same question because he wants to provoke a response.
If he doesn't get it the insults intensify. He never answers anyone's questions because he doesn't actually know anything about the subject but that's not the point. The point is the response.


www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jun/12/what-is-an-internet-troll


"the dead centre of troll territory; what they're looking for is that sharp intake of breath; the collective, "How can you say that?" outrage. Richard Wiseman, a professor of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, who also makes cool videos for the web, has had his share of haters, and greets that with equanimity. He thinks it is the consequence of this type of communication ("You remove a social barrier on the internet, and suddenly people feel a bit more freed up to say things"), and also a consequence of the fact that you move in broader circles online than you ever would in life.
...a complete rejection of and/or fear of the idea that people whose views are in the same mould might do something really fruitful with a discussion. They might work on their differences to make an argument that is more robust or far-reaching. Sticking your oar in and distracting everybody by dragging them back to first principles is a good way to ensure that nothing constructive ever happens."

[Mike Sheehy]

Just look at him. Flailing around, inventing stories about alleged slurs, trying every tactic in the book to divert attention. All those cut'n'pastes over the last 10 years and who was behind it all ? A low grade demagogue who can barely string together two coherent sentences in defence of his vicious creed. Its like when the curtain was pulled back in the wizard of Oz !

Nevertheless, we have made progress. In the midst of all the insults and obfuscation he did finally admit that jews do have some basic rights

The Jews deserve a state.

Jews do have the right to defend themselves.

It's shocking that it took 10 years, 58 pages of cut'n'paste and the determined efforts of some posters to draw him out but we finally have something to work with.

So, now that Seafoid accepts that jews have the right to defend themselves he needs elaborate on what that means in practice. Otherwise his words are just weasel words. If missiles are fired into Israel, and it is entitled to defend itself, what form should that defence take ?

It should be legal and mandated by the UN.

UN charters provide the right of countries to engage in self-defence. You, and others, think this right does not apply to Israel. That is the fundamental problem with most of the commentary on this thread.

You have to resort to lying for your argument.

You were caught on in your little lie (that the Israeli right to self defence is not mandated by the UN) and you then accuse me of lying for catching you out.
You are a joke.

Another lie.

Show me where I said "that the Israeli right to self defence is not mandated by the UN".

you said that Israeli self-defence "should be legal and mandated" by the UN implying that Israeli self-defence is  somehow NOT already legal and mandated. You know full well it is legal and mandated, hence you are a liar.

Are you really that stupid?

We are hypothetically talking about what would be an appropriate response to a hypothetical attack. An unrealistic hypothetical attack at that.

I suggested, in my opinion,  a response that would be legal and mandated by the UN.

You then put words in my mouth, make up something that I didn't say and accuse me of lying because of it. You then claimed to catch me out in all of this.

For someone who demands answers to questions all the time, you really should trying reading just the answer in front of you and not what your twisted mind tells you. What is the point in discussing anything with you?

just give it up. You were caught out in a lie. Just be more truthful in the future.

[Mike Sheehy]

Right, to recap. We have established that Jews

1) have a right to a homeland
2) have a right to self defence (mandated by UN charter despite what Muppet says)

One thing that is still to be resolved is what is an appropriate level of force to use in self-defence.

The reason you are not seeing movement on this is that it forces people to actually be FOR something as opposed to just being AGAINST any initiative.  Seafoid, Muppet, GHD and , most recently, haveaharp have been challenged to define this and what happens ?

Seafoid and Muppet,as always, duck the question with whataboutery rants. haveaharp responded with what he is AGAINST but will not commit to any concrete actions that he would support...and, as the board has seen, the anti-semite GHD has completely disappeared once he was challenged to defend his position without resorting to cut'n'paste.

The pattern is clear. There is a huge amount of moral cowardice on the part of the anti-semites and those of a knee-jerk anti-Israeli, anti-US persuasion. They never have the guts to actually propose a solution (at least one that does not involve the annilation of Israel)

 

[Mike Sheehy]

Youve pretty much captured his argumentation technique.

Problem is he believes everything he thinks you've said so ...the mans impossible to converse with.

An asshole

I can see why you resort to these petty insults. Your lightweight intellect prevents you from adding anything of substance to the debate .

[seafoid]

Youve pretty much captured his argumentation technique.

Problem is he believes everything he thinks you've said so ...the mans impossible to converse with.

An asshole

I can see why you resort to these petty insults. Your lightweight intellect prevents you from adding anything of substance to the debate .

That's a level one insult.
They go all the way up to gay Nazi antisemitic sc**bag

[seafoid]

Right, to recap. We have established that Jews

1) have a right to a homeland
2) have a right to self defence (mandated by UN charter despite what Muppet says)

One thing that is still to be resolved is what is an appropriate level of force to use in self-defence.

The reason you are not seeing movement on this is that it forces people to actually be FOR something as opposed to just being AGAINST any initiative.  Seafoid, Muppet, GHD and , most recently, haveaharp have been challenged to define this and what happens ?

Seafoid and Muppet,as always, duck the question with whataboutery rants. haveaharp responded with what he is AGAINST but will not commit to any concrete actions that he would support...and, as the board has seen, the anti-semite GHD has completely disappeared once he was challenged to defend his position without resorting to cut'n'paste.

The pattern is clear. There is a huge amount of moral cowardice on the part of the anti-semites and those of a knee-jerk anti-Israeli, anti-US persuasion. They never have the guts to actually propose a solution (at least one that does not involve the annilation of Israel)

I think Kerry are shite and will be for the next few years.

[Mike Sheehy]

Right, to recap. We have established that Jews

1) have a right to a homeland
2) have a right to self defence (mandated by UN charter despite what Muppet says)

One thing that is still to be resolved is what is an appropriate level of force to use in self-defence.

The reason you are not seeing movement on this is that it forces people to actually be FOR something as opposed to just being AGAINST any initiative.  Seafoid, Muppet, GHD and , most recently, haveaharp have been challenged to define this and what happens ?

Seafoid and Muppet,as always, duck the question with whataboutery rants. haveaharp responded with what he is AGAINST but will not commit to any concrete actions that he would support...and, as the board has seen, the anti-semite GHD has completely disappeared once he was challenged to defend his position without resorting to cut'n'paste.

The pattern is clear. There is a huge amount of moral cowardice on the part of the anti-semites and those of a knee-jerk anti-Israeli, anti-US persuasion. They never have the guts to actually propose a solution (at least one that does not involve the annilation of Israel)

I think Kerry are shite and will be for the next few years.

Yeah, things went downhill once some useless, perennial losers from Galway came down and started building forts.

[seafoid]

Right, to recap. We have established that Jews

1) have a right to a homeland
2) have a right to self defence (mandated by UN charter despite what Muppet says)

One thing that is still to be resolved is what is an appropriate level of force to use in self-defence.

The reason you are not seeing movement on this is that it forces people to actually be FOR something as opposed to just being AGAINST any initiative.  Seafoid, Muppet, GHD and , most recently, haveaharp have been challenged to define this and what happens ?

Seafoid and Muppet,as always, duck the question with whataboutery rants. haveaharp responded with what he is AGAINST but will not commit to any concrete actions that he would support...and, as the board has seen, the anti-semite GHD has completely disappeared once he was challenged to defend his position without resorting to cut'n'paste.

The pattern is clear. There is a huge amount of moral cowardice on the part of the anti-semites and those of a knee-jerk anti-Israeli, anti-US persuasion. They never have the guts to actually propose a solution (at least one that does not involve the annilation of Israel)

I think Kerry are shite and will be for the next few years.

Yeah, things went downhill once some useless, perennial losers from Galway came down and started building forts.

and they come back every year expecting to win.
But they have to rebuild dhera

[Puckoon]

Youve pretty much captured his argumentation technique.

Problem is he believes everything he thinks you've said so ...the mans impossible to converse with.

He's a troll. He keeps coming back to the same question because he wants to provoke a response.
If he doesn't get it the insults intensify. He never answers anyone's questions because he doesn't actually know anything about the subject but that's not the point. The point is the response.


www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jun/12/what-is-an-internet-troll


"the dead centre of troll territory; what they're looking for is that sharp intake of breath; the collective, "How can you say that?" outrage. Richard Wiseman, a professor of psychology at the University of Hertfordshire, who also makes cool videos for the web, has had his share of haters, and greets that with equanimity. He thinks it is the consequence of this type of communication ("You remove a social barrier on the internet, and suddenly people feel a bit more freed up to say things"), and also a consequence of the fact that you move in broader circles online than you ever would in life.
...a complete rejection of and/or fear of the idea that people whose views are in the same mould might do something really fruitful with a discussion. They might work on their differences to make an argument that is more robust or far-reaching. Sticking your oar in and distracting everybody by dragging them back to first principles is a good way to ensure that nothing constructive ever happens."

The Guardian really is an invaluable source for you!!

[give her dixie]

With all the recent talk about hypothetical scenarios on who would do what if such and such happened, lets ponder the following facts and ask what has been done in relation to the following figures as compiled by the Palestinian Centre Of Human Rights:

Throughout Palestine in 2012, PCHR documented the killing by Israeli forces and Israeli settlers of a total of 265 Palestinians, including 141 civilians (53%)

The majority of  the victims were killed in the Gaza Strip (129 people or 91%), while 12 civilians were
killed in the West Bank (9%). Of the civilians killed, 44 were children (31% of all civilians killed), including 42 in the Gaza Strip and three in the West Bank.

In 2012, 14 women were killed in Palestine (10% of all civilians killed), all of whom were killed in the Gaza
Strip.

Another 1,207 people were wounded in Palestine, the majority of whom were civilians, including 1,006 in the Gaza Strip (83%) and 201 in the West Bank (7%).

Taking into account the 2012 casualties, the number of people killed since 2000 by Israeli forces and Israeli settlers rose to 6,986, of which 5,314 were civilians, comprising 76% of the victims.

Of the people killed, 3,544 were in the Gaza Strip and 1,770 in the West Bank. The civilian victims included 1,304 children (25%), of whom 958 were in the Gaza Strip and 346 in the West Bank. Among those killed were 300 women (6%),
of whom 231 were in the Gaza Strip and 69 in the West Bank. Tens of thousands were wounded during the Second Intifada, the majority of whom were civilians; hundreds of the wounded were left with permanent disabilities.

Then take into account the apartheid wall, the thousands of homes demolished and land stolen to make way for illegal settlers from across the world, over 5,000 Palestinians in jail, hundreds of whom are children, a brulat siege imposed on Gaza by Israel, the USA and Egypt, and you get a picture of what life is like in Palestine.

Walk a mile in a Palestinian shoes and ask yourself, "What would I do if I lived there"?

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/2013/ANUUAL%20Report%202012.pdf

[seafoid]

With all the recent talk about hypothetical scenarios on who would do what if such and such happened, lets ponder the following facts and ask what has been done in relation to the following figures as compiled by the Palestinian Centre Of Human Rights:

Throughout Palestine in 2012, PCHR documented the killing by Israeli forces and Israeli settlers of a total of 265 Palestinians, including 141 civilians (53%)

The majority of  the victims were killed in the Gaza Strip (129 people or 91%), while 12 civilians were
killed in the West Bank (9%). Of the civilians killed, 44 were children (31% of all civilians killed), including 42 in the Gaza Strip and three in the West Bank.

In 2012, 14 women were killed in Palestine (10% of all civilians killed), all of whom were killed in the Gaza
Strip.

Another 1,207 people were wounded in Palestine, the majority of whom were civilians, including 1,006 in the Gaza Strip (83%) and 201 in the West Bank (7%).

Taking into account the 2012 casualties, the number of people killed since 2000 by Israeli forces and Israeli settlers rose to 6,986, of which 5,314 were civilians, comprising 76% of the victims.

Of the people killed, 3,544 were in the Gaza Strip and 1,770 in the West Bank. The civilian victims included 1,304 children (25%), of whom 958 were in the Gaza Strip and 346 in the West Bank. Among those killed were 300 women (6%),
of whom 231 were in the Gaza Strip and 69 in the West Bank. Tens of thousands were wounded during the Second Intifada, the majority of whom were civilians; hundreds of the wounded were left with permanent disabilities.

Then take into account the apartheid wall, the thousands of homes demolished and land stolen to make way for illegal settlers from across the world, over 5,000 Palestinians in jail, hundreds of whom are children, a brulat siege imposed on Gaza by Israel, the USA and Egypt, and you get a picture of what life is like in Palestine.

Walk a mile in a Palestinian shoes and ask yourself, "What would I do if I lived there"?

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/2013/ANUUAL%20Report%202012.pdf

Killing children is what terrorists do.

The Yanks and the Israelis are on the same page

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-23/world/35500278_1_drone-campaign-obama-administration-matrix/2

"Counterterrorism experts said the reliance on targeted killing is self-perpetuating, yielding undeniable short-term results that may obscure long-term costs."The problem with the drone is it's like your lawn mower," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and Obama counterterrorism adviser. "You've got to mow the lawn all the time. The minute you stop mowing, the grass is going to grow back.""

Democratic Party fan Joe Klein

http://www.fair.org/blog/2012/10/23/morning-joes-drone-debate-whose-four-year-old-girls-should-be-killed/

"The bottom line, in the end, is: Whose four-year-old gets killed? What we're doing is limiting the possibility that four-year-olds here are going to get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMy9VnldiZw