Time to boycott Isaraeli products

Arthur Beesley

Nodin wrote: »

People ran onto the beach to help the children after the second shell.

If the Israelies were the monsters that some would have us believe, they would have launched a salvo of shells at the new arrivals.

The story makes no sense.

Nodin

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

If the Israelies were the monsters that some would have us believe, they would have launched a salvo of shells at the new arrivals.

The story makes no sense.

The new arrivals included western Journalists from nearby.

Again - how did they adjust their fire if they couldn't see what they were shooting at?

Dan_Solo

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Bed time for someone - tell mommy to hold off on the cocoa tonight. We don't want you wetting the bed again.

More personal abuse. Well done on that.
So, I know this might be too much of an ask, but do the IDF know what they are shooting at or not?
Let me guess "that makes no sense" "your post is crap" "what's your point" etc etc.

theJED102

Its not for the harm it would do to Israel more so the message that it conveys to the world.

Arthur Beesley

Nodin wrote: »

The new arrivals included western Journalists from nearby.

Again - how did they adjust their fire if they couldn't see what they were shooting at?

Who said they couldn't see what they were shooting at? I asked you to clarify whether they could or not, I am taking you at your word that they were ship launched and could see the targets.

As I said above, I don't believe they would intentionally target children. I also don't believe that they would have known there were journalists present among the new arrivals.

The story does not add up.

Arthur Beesley

Dan_Solo wrote: »

More personal abuse. Well done on that.
So, I know this might be too much of an ask, but do the IDF know what they are shooting at or not?
Let me guess "that makes no sense" "your post is crap" "what's your point" etc etc.

Please stop. You are only digger yourself a deeper hole.

Standman

comongethappy wrote: »

You should boycott purchases from all conflict zones & from all countries that abuse human rights.

Wouldn't want to be hypocritical after all.

Boycotting one is slightly better than boycotting none.

Nodin

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

............

As I said above, I don't believe they would intentionally target children.............

Why? Only takes one bollocks with a gun.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91393866&postcount=208

Dan_Solo

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Please stop. You are only digger yourself a deeper hole.

You can't f**king answer can you!
Do the IDF know what they are shooting at or not?
Is this question really beyond you?

I don't see why we should punish Israeli civilian business owners and workers for the actions of their government.

We in Ireland should understand better than anyone that the politicians often not representative of the people. After all, is Enda really the best we can do as a nation? Did WW2 Ireland really feel sympathy with the death of Adolf Hitler?

Let's stay out of this complicated situation.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see why we should punish Israeli civilian business owners and workers for the actions of their government.

...................
Let's stay out of this complicated situation.

New contender for worst post of the thread.

RayM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't see why we should punish Israeli civilian business owners and workers for the actions of their government.

We in Ireland should understand better than anyone that the politicians often not representative of the people. After all, is Enda really the best we can do as a nation? Did WW2 Ireland really feel sympathy with the death of Adolf Hitler?

Let's stay out of this complicated situation.

Well, as collective punishment goes, a boycott is on the lesser end of the scale. I think there are some good arguments both for and against a boycott.

Arthur Beesley

Nodin wrote: »

Why? Only takes one bollocks with a gun.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91393866&postcount=208

Launching shells from a warship is not the same as a rogue soldier firing a gun.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

New contender for worst post of the thread.

At the risk of being schooled in my own ignorance by you (who I often disagree with but who I respect as a sort of worthy nemesis), why is it such a bad post?

Nodin

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Launching shells from a warship is not the same as a rogue soldier firing a gun.

"soldiers" Given the lack of disciplinary proceedings in most cases, how "rogue" they are is open to debate.

Same mentality. You can't have an organisation harshly suppress a population for nearly five decades and expect them not to develop an institutional view of that population as lesser than themselves.

theJED102

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't see why we should punish Israeli civilian business owners and workers for the actions of their government.

We in Ireland should understand better than anyone that the politicians often not representative of the people. After all, is Enda really the best we can do as a nation? Did WW2 Ireland really feel sympathy with the death of Adolf Hitler?

Let's stay out of this complicated situation.

So the message reaches the Israeli government. In fairness its better than complaining about it and still doing nothing.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

At the risk of being schooled in my own ignorance by you (who I often disagree with but who I respect as a sort of worthy nemesis), why is it such a bad post?

It's an illegal occupation and colonisation that has lead to countless lives being lost and regional instability. Part of the ending of that scenario is pressuring Israel to leave the colonies and withdraw to its borders. A boycott is a peaceful means of bring that about.

Arthur Beesley

Nodin wrote: »

"soldiers" Given the lack of disciplinary proceedings in most cases, how "rogue" they are is open to debate.

Same mentality. You can't have an organisation harshly suppress a population for nearly five decades and expect them not to develop an institutional view of that population as lesser than themselves.

Well I didn't think boll**** was the appropriate term.

Regardless, I disagree with the claim of nearly 5 decades of suppression.

Nodin

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Well I didn't think boll**** was the appropriate term.

Regardless, I disagree with the claim of nearly 5 decades of suppression.

The first settlements started in 1967. Its now halfway through 2014. That's five decades there, near enough.

Those who are pro-immigration should look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict for a potential negative consequence of immigration.

There were little or no Jews in the region up until the late 19th Century, when waves of immigrants began to settle in the region over decades up to and after WW2 which sped up the process before they had enough critical mass to announce themselves as a new, independent Jewish country.

There was no initial "invasion" by Jews into the region, just a drip drip of immigration.

Think about it, if there had been proper immigration controls Jews would be a tiny, tiny percentage of the overall population in what is modern day Israel.

Just a thought amid the wider debate.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

The first settlements started in 1967. Its now halfway through 2014. That's five decades there, near enough.

To be fair, the first settlements in 1967 wouldn't have occurred had there not been an invasion from the countries on all sides of Israel.

Like it or not, Israel did their land grab while trying to defend itself from attack.

end of the road

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Bed time for someone - tell mommy to hold off on the cocoa tonight. We don't want you wetting the bed again.

tell mommy to hold off on the cocoa in general, We don't want babba arthur weting his pants at any moment, seriously, grow up

eeepaulo

In the interest of balance and fairness please allow the israeli supporters in this thread to post at a ratio of about 20:1

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Those who are pro-immigration should look at the Israel-Palestinian conflict for a potential negative consequence of immigration.

There were little or no Jews in the region up until the late 19th Century, when waves of immigrants began to settle in the region over decades up to and after WW2 which sped up the process before they had enough critical mass to announce themselves as a new, independent Jewish country.

There was no initial "invasion" by Jews into the region, just a drip drip of immigration.

Think about it, if there had been proper immigration controls Jews would be a tiny, tiny percentage of the overall population in what is modern day Israel.

Just a thought amid the wider debate.

Except, that Zionists, actually had an active plan of colonization, albeit one that started slowly.

There is no comparison to immigration, which do not include active plans of colonization.

Your conflating 2 very different things.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair, the first settlements in 1967 wouldn't have occurred had there not been an invasion from the countries on all sides of Israel.

Like it or not, Israel did their land grab while trying to defend itself from attack.

Israel was the one who attacked first in the 1967 war........

wexie

wes wrote: »

There is no comparison to immigration, which do not include active plans of colonization.....

....that we're currently aware of, you'll be singing an entirely different tune 20 years from now....in Estonian....

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

To be fair, the first settlements in 1967 wouldn't have occurred had there not been an invasion from the countries on all sides of Israel.

Like it or not, Israel did their land grab while trying to defend itself from attack.

...which is neither here nor there, as there's no such thing as right of conquest.

wendell borton

Boycotting the major Arab product of oil would be a lot more productive way to bring about the downfall of Israel .
The PFLP in the 70's had planned to take out the Arab representatives of Opec unless they supported Palestinian liberation, except Carlos the jackel took a payoff.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

...which is neither here nor there, as there's no such thing as right of conquest.

True, but I think that if for example (hypothetical so please indulge me) Ireland got attacked from the sea on all sides of the country I wouldn't feel too bad if in the process of self-defence we managed to extend our maritime waters as a way to protect ourselves from future attacks.

wendell borton

[Deleted User] wrote: »

True, but I think that if for example (hypothetical so please indulge me) Ireland got attacked from the sea on all sides of the country I wouldn't feel too bad if in the process of self-defence we managed to extend our maritime waters as a way to protect ourselves from future attacks.

It might happen if oil is discovered around rockall.