Gaza Beach Shelling

[boarder]

Frankly, I don't understand your logic. It is not matter of "two sides should stop it". It is matter of one side stopping it, because IDF didn't shell Gasa before Qasam bombings. I assure you the minute qasams will stop - shelling will stop too.

And I had read that the recent rocket attacks where in retaliation for the missile that killed 3 people recently. Which was Israel retiliating for a bombing of...and so it goes on.
It is a matter of two sides should stop it, because you are both as guilty as each other.
Somehow your assurances dont hold much water.

 

[Leha]

And I had read that the recent rocket attacks where in retaliation for the missile that killed 3 people recently. Which was Israel retiliating for a bombing of...and so it goes on.
It is a matter of two sides should stop it, because you are both as guilty as each other.
Somehow your assurances dont hold much water.

Let me ask you a question: what action was proper for UK to take after they were bombed by german bombers?

 

[Sh3kel]

Let me ask you a question: what action was proper for UK to take after they were bombed by german bombers?

Chamberlain belived it was to sacrifice the entire population of Czechoslovakia to the Germans in the hopes the UK would be eaten last...

 

[Leha]

Chamberlain belived it was to sacrifice the entire population of Czechoslovakia to the Germans in the hopes the UK would be eaten last...

Indeed.

And we talk here of "massacre".

 

[Sh3kel]

Indeed.

And we talk here of "massacre".

Now now, let's not cheapen the meaning of that word! It's not a "massacre" if the people that died were 3rd generation born in a country "illegally" occupied!

 

[Sidhe]

Now, come on Sidhe, you and I know well that the Economist is little more than a proto-Communist rag.

What does Fox News say about it?

OK Fox news I hope your joking, yes no media bias there, ok just look into the situation yourself, personally I think that article sums up the situation pretty well, but if you can pick it apart point by point, or point out any areas of real bias then feel free to do so.

Let me ask you a question: what action was proper for UK to take after they were bombed by german bombers?

That's a terribly inapropriate example; a better example would be what action was it apropriate for Britain to take when the IRA blew up a shopping precinct in Manchester? And what lead to the IRA feeling they needed to do this? You could do a lot worse in looking into how the sitatuion was resolved here amongst both sides, far, far from perfect but resolved none the less, when lessons were learned the hard way.

 

[bathsheba666]

OK Fox news I hope your joking, yes no media bias there, ok just look into the situation yourself, personally I think that article sums up the situation pretty well, but if you can pick it apart point by point, or point out any areas of real bias then feel free to do so.

I assumed, since you were English, the flashing blue light would be unnecessary.

 

[Sidhe]

yeah but not everyone who reads this forumn knows your taking the piss, so sometimes it does no harm to highlight it.

 

[Leha]

That's a terribly inapropriate example; a better example would be what action was it apropriate for Britain to take when the IRA blew up a shopping precinct in Manchester? And what lead to the IRA feeling they needed to do this? You could do a lot worse in looking into how the sitatuion was resolved here amongst both sides, far, far from perfect but resolved none the less, when lessons were learned the hard way.

Example is perfect. I'm not talking of suicide bombings. I'm talking about missile bombardments of civilian areas and kindergardens on everyday basis. Or maybe it is news? UK RAF actualy levelled german cities in response.

 

[Sidhe]

Do you see me arguing that Bombing Dresden, Hamburg, Bremen in retaliation was a good idea, it was tragic tit for tat hammering when the war was all but over, meant to subdue Germany when it was already falling to it's knees, heartlessly sad and an atrocity that had little merit, it was also very controversial too and born of hatred. Two wrongs really don't equate to a right, since you seem to want me to respond I have, but I still think it's a bad example.

 

[Leha]

Do you see me arguing that Bombing Dresden, Hamburg, Bremen in retaliation was a good idea, it was tragic tit for tat hammering when the war was all but over, meant to subdue Germany when it was already falling to it's knees, heartlessly sad and an atrocity that had little merit, it was also very controversial too and born of hatred. Two wrongs really don't equate to a right, since you seem to want me to respond I have, but I still think it's a bad example.

Excuse me, but I really, really can't emagine Great Britain starting peacefull negotiations with Nazi Germany after it's cities were bombed (thanks God). I'm not talking about the end of war, I'm talking about beginning.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm not sure what you want me to say, but it is a poor example, and besides both sides were on an equal footing technology wise, also the only terroism wasn't directed at us.

If you want to make a good analogy use one that is very simillar to the conflict in your country is all I'm saying. Besides up untill the end of the war the British tried very hard to only bomb military targets. There was alot of reconnaisance and intelligence work that went into picking targets and avoiding civillian areas so as to minimise colateral damage to sensitive areas.

 

[Leha]

I'm not sure what you want me to say, but it is a poor example, and besides both sides were on an equal footing technology wise, also the only terroism wasn't directed at us.

If you want to make a good analogy use one that is very simillar to the conflict in your country is all I'm saying. Besides up untill this time the British tried very hard to only bomb military targets. There was alot of reconnaisance work that went into picking targets and avoiding civillian areas.

And I'm saying it is very good analogy. Territory (cities with regular people) of one country is bombarded from the territory of another country. The proper response would be to shell the hell out of agressor, like it was in UK. But NO. Evil zionists don't do that, they shell empty spaces instead. So when some stray shell kills innocent people (it is very sad and I don't deny that) it is "massacre". Wow! And when Qasam falls in the kindergarden in Sderot the whole world is silent!

And what about weapon? You know, Qasam kills very well. There's not a problem with that. They have also "Grad" missiles. Your argument about weapon would be valid only in case, if Israel started to shell Gasa cities ruthelessly. Oh, yeah, then they'd feel weapon disballans very well. you bet.

 

[Sidhe]

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess, to me it's poor to make an anology like that, to you it's relevant; I guess we differ on what we consider as close to the situation and what isn't. I can't say I'm going to chastise Israel for retaliation, that would be hypocritical, but let your military do it's homework is my humble suggestion.

When you make an example like that, I will say it's free of merit. Sorry if you disagree.

 

[boarder]

Let me ask you a question: what action was proper for UK to take after they were bombed by german bombers?

I have to agree with Sidhe here its a really bad example, to compare the current state of affairs in Israel and its issues to 70 years ago in ww2 is silly.
You arent facing a aggressor who has just taken over 6 or 7 countrys and is bent on european domination, if not world domination.
Oh and I dont agree with bombing of citys just to kill people back then either, however due to what they where up against its more justifyed.
But dont try to use ww2 examples in relation to events in the world today as imo they are not relevant.(They are in some ways but not the example you used).

 

[blackheart]

So this all boils down to whoever gets the last hit, because neither side wants to stop without the other doing so first? Don't go around rambling about morality and moral high ground if you're going to reciprocate your opponent's violence with escalating violence.

 

[Tulkas12]

So this all boils down to whoever gets the last hit, because neither side wants to stop without the other doing so first? Don't go around rambling about morality and moral high ground if you're going to reciprocate your opponent's violence with escalating violence.

Hasn't both sides let the other have the last in the many peace deals they've made and broken.

May I ask what one is to do in the face of constant violence? Just stand there?
We need to remember Hamas calls for the erasing of Isreal. That cannot be a solution, so they will consistently resort to violence....

 

[blackheart]

Hasn't both sides let the other have the last in the many peace deals they've made and broken.

May I ask what one is to do in the face of constant violence? Just stand there?
We need to remember Hamas calls for the erasing of Isreal. That cannot be a solution, so they will consistently resort to violence....

After 50 some years of this, you would think someone would try something new.

 

[Tulkas12]

After 50 some years of this, you would think someone would try something new.

Like what?

 

[blackheart]

Like what?

Well if I had the plan that could actually work, would I really be sitting here?