Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Countdown to the Bomb

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Neamhshuntasach
    Registered Users Posts: 2,168 ✭✭✭Neamhshuntasach


    <3BeingIN6th wrote: »
    Attack the post, not the poster.

    If you read his/her post you'll see i only paraphrased what he/she had said.


  • Options
    #123
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Neamhshuntasach wrote: »
    If you read his/her post you'll see i only paraphrased what he/she had said.
    Hmm. I missed that.

    Then that post applies to both of you.


  • Options
    #124
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    Neamhshuntasach wrote: »
    Do you understand the word topic? I'm talking about Palestinians because that's what the TOPIC was when i posted in this thread. Israel and Palestine. Do you not think i'm aware of other atrocities that occur in the world? I think you need to get over yourself a little and see the bigger picture. What i said can be applied to anywhere in the world where people are victims. The media always plays down massacres and deaths of innocents through whatever means when western or western supported Governments are responsible for such acts.

    Yes there are some western media that go against the norm. The BBC pick and choose when to lean to the left, the Guardian can be good for accurate enough reporting. And Robert Fisk at the Independent is good. But not everyone gets their news from people like him. That's my entire point. If media is selective in what the report, people will be selective in what they know.

    LOL if you want to be topic specific, then look at the topic. The current topic is the attacks in Gaza, and the media aren't biased.

    You think left-leaning = balanced? Eh, ok ;)

    My point is that Israeli, Dharfurian, Palestinian, Sierra leonian (??), Irish, South African etc etc etc tragedies get ignored b the media. I don't think the Palestinians have a monopoly on this over the Israelis in this case.


  • Options
    #125
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    I'd say the next nuke will be an Israeli attack on Iranian uranium enrichment plants.


  • Options
    #126
    Neamhshuntasach
    Registered Users Posts: 2,168 ✭✭✭Neamhshuntasach


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    LOL if you want to be topic specific, then look at the topic. The current topic is the attacks in Gaza, and the media aren't biased.

    You think left-leaning = balanced? Eh, ok ;)

    My point is that Israeli, Dharfurian, Palestinian, Sierra leonian (??), Irish, South African etc etc etc tragedies get ignored b the media. I don't think the Palestinians have a monopoly on this over the Israelis in this case.


    Oh okay, guess i wasn't talking about the current attacks in Gaza then. I thought the topic was about the ones a few weeks ago. My bad.

    You need to read back to when i first replied. It was in response to someone defending Israel by saying that they need to respond to rocket attacks. That is on topic. Talking about Darfur, South Africa, etc is not on topic. Especially when you use them to make it look like i'm one sided.

    Again you are twisting words, i said the BBC can be a bit left leaning at times and report from that perspective. That has nothing to do with being balanced.

    The same reason the Palestinian perspective isn't reported so often is the same reason as the other places you listed. Too many Governments get rich off them. And because they censor what a lot of the popular media reports, people don't hear about them unless they look for them. My point is the same as what you just said your point is above, except i only applied it to the Palestine and Israel situation. And only because that's what the discussion was.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    Neamhshuntasach wrote: »
    Oh okay, guess i wasn't talking about the current attacks in Gaza then. I thought the topic was about the ones a few weeks ago. My bad.

    You need to read back to when i first replied. It was in response to someone defending Israel by saying that they need to respond to rocket attacks. That is on topic. Talking about Darfur, South Africa, etc is not on topic. Especially when you use them to make it look like i'm one sided.

    Again you are twisting words, i said the BBC can be a bit left leaning at times and report from that perspective. That has nothing to do with being balanced.

    The same reason the Palestinian perspective isn't reported so often is the same reason as the other places you listed. Too many Governments get rich off them. And because they censor what a lot of the popular media reports, people don't hear about them unless they look for them. My point is the same as what you just said your point is above, except i only applied it to the Palestine and Israel situation. And only because that's what the discussion was.

    So, who is one-sided? I'm not being bad. I just don't see it when I'm watching the news.

    As a paid up leftie, I reckon the writers that people like me tend to read are as one-sided as anyone. Do you not agree?

    I do think you are one sided. I don't think that's a bad thing. We all have our opinions. I just think you have a slight persecution complex.

    I think there are a lot of valid points to make with regard to Palestinians being the victims (I don't neccesarily agree, but I can see people's points). But, I do feel that blaming a media-in-cahoots-with-government conspiracy only takes away from your credibility.

    IN my humble opinion, lack of media coverage is much more acute in Africa/Asia/South America than in Palestine.


  • Options
    #128
    Gareth37
    Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    Only a matter of time before other countries join in now.


  • Options
    #129
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC-F8snbr2M


  • Options
    #130
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Youtube video above...

    ...if only it was that easy.


  • Options
    #131
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    You don't get "balance" by reading the claims of those with extreme one-sided views, regardless of whether they're from opposite sides of the line.

    Actually, both authors actually agree that Ethnic Cleansing took place, to be fair Benny Morris calls it a half a ethnic cleansing, if I remember right. My point is that they both actually broadly agree on the history. Which sort of make your point moot.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    You don't learn the realities of Northern Ireland by listening to the propaganda from both sides.

    Both the historians are Israeli. Both broadly agree that ethnic cleansing took place. Sure they differ on the details, but they broadly agree.

    So again your point is moot.

    Also, both are not propagandists, but proper historians, coming from different a different place politically, but both of there work is actually proper scholarly work.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    I've never used rolleyes on boards, but I think it was apt in this case.

    Sorry, no it wasn't. You clearly don't know both author positions, which oddly enough broadly agree with what happened. You consider the both historians propagandists, so you are clearly unaware of there work. Neither is a propagandists imho, but serious historians.

    I used the 2 extremes (see to speak) to make a point, that even people who are so far apart politically, actually broadly agree on the history.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    On another note, I don't think dwelling on the past is the way to solve these problems. It's not worked in other conflicts.

    Millions of people are living with those consequence, so it is important. Also, ignoring history tend to have really bad crap happening again.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    There are headbangers the world over who think a ruck will solve their woes. The Israeli people don't just happen to be a shower of bastrds, as some would have us believe. Neither are the Palestinians.

    I completely agree, but by ignoring the why, then there is no there can be peace.

    The Israeli's wanted a state due to oppression in Europe and thats where there coming from.

    The Palestinians were kicked out of there homes by the Zionists and have been oppressed for the last few decades.

    The way I look at it, by understanding where everyone is coming from, will help make peace and this understanding come from history. I find people who ignore it, are misguided as it informs why both side do what they do.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    It's just a circle of violence. It's like Northern Ireland. There's anger on both sides because of what's fresh in their mind. The Israeli people are angry and scared because their neighbours want to wipe them off the face of the earth. The Palestinians are angry and scared because Israel has a mighty army.

    I agree with the circle of violence, but your reasoning for the Palestinians is off. They are pissed as they were kicked out of there own country, which Israel for all intents and purposes destroyed, when they created there own state.

    Same goes for the Israeli's, you got the reasoning wrong, it has more to do with the persecution in Europe and the Holocaust. Remember the Palestinians are in no position to destroy Israel and are being actively oppressed by them, Israel has made peace with both Jordan and Egypt, so all there neighbors hardly want to destroy them, so when you say that, you are simply factually incorrect. It should also be noted that the Arab state have made a peace offer, which would give Israel peace and recognition from almost all of the Middle East. See when you take a closer look at things, they look very different than what you described.

    Again, how does one understand the other without looking at history to explain, why they feel the way they do?
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    The cycle needs to be broken. I don't know how to do it.

    Of course it does, but how can this happen, when 1.5 million people are being starved to death or with Israel colonizing more and more land. They need to stop this as well, and the Palestinians need to stop there violence as well, but neither side has even actually managed it. Both sides sadly actually know what to do to stop the current violence, but neither seem willing, which make things all the more frustrating.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    The only thing I'm sure of is that paddies sticking their noses in to tell the world that Israelis are murderous swine really only make sense to their peers at their poxy rallies.

    Sorry, going to have to disagree with you. Israel violates international law all the time and nothing is done, but when Hamas does so, the entire Gaza strip is blockaded. I have always wondered, why both sides violations are treated so different and its clear that Israel can get away with what it wants and the Palestinians are always punished by the US etc.

    Sorry, but 1.5 million people are being punished for there leaders violating agreements etc, but Israel get off scot free for doing the bloody same thing. Why the double standard? You need to remember the Israeli's elected Ariel Sharon for crying out loud, its a bit rich for them to justify there collective punishment because the Palestinians elected Hamas, when they themselves have elected people like Sharon.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    The real solution will undoubtedly involve a degree of reconciliation if it's to be solved without one side being annihilated.

    Of course there will have to be peace, but lets say 50 years from now, the entire West Bank is colonized, then where the hell does the Palestinian state goes. Israels colonial project could actually make a 2 state solution impossible. Yes, Hamas can delay peace with there violence, but they don't have the power to make it nearly impossible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    wes wrote: »
    Actually, both authors actually agree that Ethnic Cleansing took place, to be fair Benny Morris calls it a half a ethnic cleansing, if I remember right. My point is that they both actually broadly agree on the history. Which sort of make your point moot.



    Both the historians are Israeli. Both broadly agree that ethnic cleansing took place. Sure they differ on the details, but they broadly agree.

    So again your point is moot.



    Sorry, no it wasn't. You clearly don't know both author positions, which oddly enough broadly agree with what happened. I used the 2 extremes to make a point, that even people who are so far apart politically, actually broadly agree on the history.



    Millions of people are living with those consequence, so it is important. Also, ignoring history tend to have really bad crap happening again.



    I completely agree, but by ignoring the why, then there is no there can be peace.

    The Israeli's wanted a state due to oppression in Europe and thats where there coming from.

    The Palestinians were kicked out of there homes by the Zionists and have been oppressed for the last few decades.

    The way I look at it, by understanding where everyone is coming from, will help make peace and this understanding come from history. I find people who ignore it, are misguided as it informs why both side do what they do.



    I agree with the circle of violence, but your reasoning for the Palestinians is off. They are pissed as they were kicked out of there own country, which Israel for all intents and purposes destroyed, when they created there own state.

    Same goes for the Israeli's, you got the reasoning wrong, it has more to do with the persecution in Europe and the Holocaust. Remember the Palestinians are in no position to destroy Israel and are being actively oppressed by them, Israel has made peace with both Jordan and Egypt, so all there neighbors hardly want to destroy them, so when you say that, you are simply factually incorrect. It should also be noted that the Arab state have made a peace offer, which would give Israel peace and recognition from almost all of the Middle East. See when you take a closer look at things, they look very different than what you described.

    Again, how does one understand the other without looking at history to explain, why they feel the way they do?



    Of course it does, but how can this happen, when 1.5 million people are being starved to death or with Israel colonizing more and more land. They need to stop this as well, and the Palestinians need to stop there violence as well, but neither side has even actually managed it.



    Sorry, going to have to disagree with you. Israel violates international law all the time and nothing is done, but when Hamas does so, the entire Gaza strip is blockaded. I have always wondered, why both sides violations are treated so different and its clear that Israel can get away with what it wants and the Palestinians are always punished by the US etc.



    Of course there will have to be peace, but lets say 50 years from now, the entire West Bank is colonized, then where the hell does the Palestinian state goes. Israels colonial project could actually make a 2 state solution impossible. Yes, Hamas can delay peace with there violence, but they don't have the power to make it nearly impossible.

    You talk about some guy who writes a book called "The ethnic cleansing of Palestine", who's patently biased. Then you suggest I read another book by some hardcore Zionist to get balance. They agree on history? So what? lots of people in the North agreed on what happened. They just disagreed about who was in the right.

    You can keep saying the palestines are angry about their land, and the israelis are angry at Hitler.
    It's not true, though. Just in the same way Irish Republicans were more angry at their day to day abuse from British soldiers and the RUC than what happened 800 years ago, and Loyalists were angry about their brothers and sons etc being killed by the RA.

    It's the present, and recent past that most affects people.
    That's why conflicts get solved when the cycle of violence is broken.

    I can tell you now the Arab-Israeli conflict won't be solved by people banging on about the history. It'll be solved by someone who manages to negotiate a ceasefire for long enough that the sides aren't consumed with hatred.

    You can keep banging on about international law. We have an ineffectual UN, so the argument is pointless.

    When the Palestinians stop humping rockets into Israel, the Israeli people won't support their government in bombing them.

    When the Israelis stop blockading Palestinians, their people won't elect terrorists into government.

    It's going to take someone with balls. But demonising one side when both are equally at fault is about the least useful thing you could do to end this conflict.


  • Options
    #133
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    You talk about some guy who writes a book called "The ethnic cleansing of Palestine", who's patently biased. Then you suggest I read another book by some hardcore Zionist to get balance. They agree on history? So what? lots of people in the North agreed on what happened. They just disagreed about who was in the right.

    So you haven't even read either author and call them biased. That a bit rich. The title of the book is a historical fact. I hardly see a bias there, seeing as the event he named his book after, actually happened.

    tallaght01 wrote: »
    You can keep saying the palestines are angry about their land, and the israelis are angry at Hitler.
    It's not true, though. Just in the same way Irish Republicans were more angry at their day to day abuse from British soldiers and the RUC than what happened 800 years ago, and Loyalists were angry about their brothers and sons etc being killed by the RA.

    Except it is part of it. Being kicked out your country and forced to live in refugee camps and constant discrimination.

    Israel are angry about the holocaust, they bring it up all the time during these conflicts. Just read what there leaders say. They want a country so they will never be persecuted again.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    It's the present, and recent past that most affects people.
    That's why conflicts get solved when the cycle of violence is broken.

    I can tell you now the Arab-Israeli conflict won't be solved by people banging on about the history. It'll be solved by someone who manages to negotiate a ceasefire for long enough that the sides aren't consumed with hatred.

    If that person doesn't understand the history, they won't have a clue where both sides are coming from. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    You can keep banging on about international law. We have an ineffectual UN, so the argument is pointless.

    Except it isn't. International law should be respected by everyone and that included the US buddies.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    When the Palestinians stop humping rockets into Israel, the Israeli people won't support their government in bombing them.

    When the Israelis stop blockading Palestinians, their people won't elect terrorists into government.

    I agree with your hear, both sides need to stop attacking each other.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    It's going to take someone with balls. But demonising one side when both are equally at fault is about the least useful thing you could do to end this conflict.

    Sorry, but how are the Palestinians responsible for there own occupation exactly? Sure there equally responsible for the cycle of violence, but the occupation is all Israels fault, as they wanted the land there. This btw goes for every occupier, they are responsible for the occupation and not the occupied.


  • Options
    #134
    galwayrush
    Registered Users Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    Time to start the countdown, how about lending them the old Millinium Clock? It'll stop working before the end so we'll be safe enough.


  • Options
    #135
    tallaght01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭tallaght01


    wes wrote: »
    So you haven't even read either author and call them biased. That a bit rich. The title of the book is a historical fact. I hardly see a bias there, seeing as the event he named his book after, actually happened.




    Except it is part of it. Being kicked out your country and forced to live in refugee camps and constant discrimination.

    Israel are angry about the holocaust, they bring it up all the time during these conflicts. Just read what there leaders say. They want a country so they will never be persecuted again.



    If that person doesn't understand the history, they won't have a clue where both sides are coming from. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.



    Except it isn't. International law should be respected by everyone and that included the US buddies.



    I agree with your hear, both sides need to stop attacking each other.



    Sorry, but how are the Palestinians responsible for there own occupation exactly? Sure there equally responsible for the cycle of violence, but the occupation is all Israels fault, as they wanted the land there. This btw goes for every occupier, they are responsible for the occupation and not the occupied.

    Wes, you're defining history by your terms.

    You're apportioning blame on your terms.

    You equate Israeli leaders talking about the holocaust with the people being angry about the holocaust. Leaders do that kind of thing all the time. Look at the north again. Both sides are now living in relative peace because the cycle of violence has ceased.....even though the land situation is still the same...despite all the rhetoric about 800 years of injustice.

    You can keep talking about international law when there's no-one to enforce it, whether you're a big balls US ally or a tinpot African dictator.

    You can keep bringing up the "well they started it" argument if you think it will help.

    But I guarantee "you started it" will never be a part of a successful peace deal.


  • Options
    #136
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    tallaght01 wrote: »
    Wes, you're defining history by your terms.

    You're apportioning blame on your terms.

    No, I am not. I talking about historical facts. Zionists kicked the Palestinians out of there homes. This happened, and its the fault of the people who chucked them out. Its pretty simple, it happened. To point out something happened is not an example of bias, but a statement of fact.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    You equate Israeli leaders talking about the holocaust with the people being angry about the holocaust. Leaders do that kind of thing all the time. Look at the north again. Both sides are now living in relative peace because the cycle of violence has ceased.....even though the land situation is still the same...despite all the rhetoric about 800 years of injustice.

    It goes far beyond that. Its part of the entire narrative of the state and is taught that way in the school system.
    tallaght01 wrote: »
    You can keep talking about international law when there's no-one to enforce it, whether you're a big balls US ally or a tinpot African dictator.

    All, I am saying is that both sides should be treated the same way. There seems to be people able to enforce it against Hamas, so why not Israel as well.
    tallaght01 wrote: »

    You can keep bringing up the "well they started it" argument if you think it will help.

    But I guarantee "you started it" will never be a part of a successful peace deal.

    Of course not, who started it is not helpful, but I am not sitting in a peace negotiations, so I can comment on that, as what I say won't affect peace negotiations one iota. Really, what you saying would only make sense if I was a peace negotiator, which I am not.


  • Options
    #137
    arse..biscuits
    Registered Users Posts: 1,878 ✭✭✭arse..biscuits


    wes wrote: »

    Of course not, who started it is not helpful, but I am not sitting in a peace negotiations, so I can comment on that, as what I say won't affect peace negotiations one iota. Really, what you saying would only make sense if I was a peace negotiator, which I am not.

    Very childish


  • Options
    #138
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    arse..biscuits wrote: »
    Very childish

    Nothing of the sort. However, since when has calling people names been mature, as a matter of interest?

    I am just stating a fact, nothing I do here will affect any potential peace process and I am just stating my opinion. If you can't argue against it and would rather call me names, go right ahead. Still, do you honestly think me stating my opinion on who at fault actually influences anything?

    It doesn't change the fact that we are not a part of some peace conference. To some how suggest that we hold this discussion to the same standards of a peace conference is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #139
    arse..biscuits
    Registered Users Posts: 1,878 ✭✭✭arse..biscuits


    wes wrote: »
    Nothing of the sort. However, since when has calling people names been mature, as a matter of interest?

    I am just stating a fact, nothing I do here will affect any potential peace process and I am just stating my opinion. If you can't argue against it and would rather call me names, go right ahead. Still, do you honestly think me stating my opinion on who at fault actually influences anything?

    It doesn't change the fact that we are not a part of some peace conference. To some how suggest that we hold this discussion to the same standards of a peace conference is ridiculous.

    I stopped posting on this thread ages back because it decended into nonsence. Certain people will always just nit pick each other posts and it just gets boring and pointless. I'm not going to respond to your replies any further because you will just give another smug reply and I cant be bothered. So feel free to assume you are right about everything.
    Peace


  • Options
    #140
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    arse..biscuits wrote: »
    I stopped posting on this thread ages back because it decended into nonsence. Certain people will always just nit pick each other posts and it just gets boring and pointless. I'm not going to respond to your replies any further because you will just give another smug reply and I cant be bothered. So feel free to assume you are right about everything.
    Peace

    I am smug? Honestly, a bit rich for you to say that since you seem to just interested in calling me names instead of trying to argue with me. You clearly would rather call other smug and childish than debate. Sorry, but last I checked the moderators decide what can and can not be debated in a thread.


  • Options
    #141
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    arse..biscuits wrote: »
    I stopped posting on this thread ages back because it decended into nonsence. Certain people will always just nit pick each other posts and it just gets boring and pointless. I'm not going to respond to your replies any further because you will just give another smug reply and I cant be bothered. So feel free to assume you are right about everything.
    Peace

    Same here. I gave up too because of all the trollish behaviour.
    Me signing off from this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Biggins wrote: »
    Same here. I gave up too because of all the trollish behaviour.
    Me signing off from this thread.

    Trollish behaviour? You mean, you gave up because you're arguments were weak and you had no responses to any of my points.


  • Options
    #143
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,568 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Trollish behaviour? You mean, you gave up because you're arguments were weak and you had no responses to any of my points.

    Nope. You had good points. I got tired of the tit for tat, bad general tone and behaviour of the way this whole thing was and still is going.

    Bye.


Advertisement