Registered bored user

DrCribbens wrote:
starzokc You may have missed the point. I don't think his comment was about the attackers. It was about the reaction to them.
DrCribbens wrote:
johncourage Even Israel admitted that they were the aggressors. I think you need to as well.

And the idea that the Palestinians' goal is death is frankly laughable. I realise that you've most probably been brought up on a diet of American pro-Israeli propaganda, but just think about it for a moment. I'm sure there are some psycho Palestinians that just want revenge, but I'm equally sure that the majority just want their homes back. The homes that were stolen from them 50 years ago by an invading force which then either bulldozed them or gave them to Israeli settlers.

Ask yourself: what would you do if a foreign power invaded your country and stole your family's home? Would you passively sit back and think 'ok, fair enough, maybe there's some kind of historical precedence for this, I'll just wait and see if the invaders will be kind enough to give me my house back'. Or would you fight for your country? When this invading force moved more and more people into your homeland and set up towns for its own citizens where your towns used to be, would you shrug and forget about it, or would you try to do something about it?

And yes, absolutely, unreservedly, the killing of civilians is wrong in every respect and could never be defended by a civilised person, and the people who carry out these crimes deserve to rot. I presume you would agree with that. But you need to understand that over 90% of the casualties in this war are Palestinian. Some years it's even higher. In 2014, 96 out of every hundred people killed in the war were Palestinian. And these Palestinian casualties aren't soldiers. The vast majority of them are civilians. So who is it exactly that deserves to rot?

So isn't there just part of you that wonders if the Palestinians have a point? Or that Israel might just not be the victims that they and the Americans want you to think they are, that they might in fact be the heavy handed oppressors of an entire nation?
DrCribbens wrote:
Despite the fact that the sight of the creepy self-confessed pussy-grabbing bastard makes me want to vomit, he's innocent until proven guilty. However, if any of these women have evidence, there should be a trial.
DrCribbens wrote:
I couldn't understand a word of what they were saying, ynomsayn?

Just because they're in a gang that shouldn't mean that they no longer have to articulate.
DrCribbens wrote:
johncourage So the country that Israel invaded called on its allies for help? Seems reasonable to me.

The fact is that Israel invaded another country and occupied territories that, 50 years later, they still occupy. In the process of occupation they displaced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, many of whom have never been allowed to return. Instead, those Palestinian houses that the Israelis didn't bulldoze are now owned by Israeli occupiers, in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention.

And you wonder why some Palestinians resort to arms to try to restore their homeland?
DrCribbens wrote:
johncourage From the Wikipedia article: "...on 5 June Israel launched what it claimed were a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields... The Egyptians were caught by surprise, and nearly the entire Egyptian air force was destroyed with few Israeli losses, giving the Israelis air supremacy. Simultaneously, the Israelis launched a ground offensive into the Gaza Strip and the Sinai, which again caught the Egyptians by surprise. After some initial resistance, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered the evacuation of the Sinai. Israeli forces rushed westward in pursuit of the Egyptians, inflicted heavy losses, and conquered the Sinai."

"At the commencement of hostilities, both Egypt and Israel announced that they had been attacked by the other country.[122] The Israeli government later abandoned its initial position, acknowledging Israel had struck first"

What are now known as the Occupied Territories are the lands that Israel occupied as a result of this invasion, which led to millions of Palestinians having to flee their homes and their homeland.

So you're just plain wrong. Don't try to tell me that Israel are the victims here.
DrCribbens wrote:
johncourage But that's exactly the point. It isn't that simple, is it? Learn some history. Find out how you've been sold the idea that Israel is just defending itself at the same time that it continues to flout the Geneva Convention by annexing territories it occupied after invading them in 1967. It wasn't defending itself then any more than Germany was defending itself by invading Poland.
DrCribbens wrote:
johncourage The Israelis aren't killing civilians? Really? Are you sure? You're not aware that Israeli troops have killed thousands upon thousands of Palestinian men, women and children? You've never heard of Baruch Goldstein? You didn't know about the Israeli rocket attack on the Palestinian school? How can you have an opinion on this and not know that? 
DrCribbens wrote:
johncourage Right. The Israelis aren't oppressing the Palestinians. The Palestinians are doing it to themselves. The Israelis are blameless. They aren't firing rockets into apartment buildings, that's the Palestinians with fireworks.
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats You seem very keen to throw the 't' word around. You don't seem to be aware of any of the facts of the situation, such as the fact that 90% of the deaths in the Israeli/Palestinian war are Palestinians (96% if you just count since 2005). If anyone's capitulating to terrorists, I think Trump just did.
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats So Israel is blameless in all this then? Because obviously they haven't bombed innocent people or broken the Geneva Convention have they? Oh, wait...
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats Your misunderstanding and naivety is staggering. Utterly staggering. You have no clue what's going on in the middle east. You just sit on your couch and suck up the American fake news like you're at your mother's tit. You have no concept of history and the reasons things are the way they are. Your claim that the PLO are oppressing people just illustrates your towering ignorance of this subject. Who the hell are the PLO supposed to be oppressing? The Israelis? That'll be the same way that the Jews oppressed the Nazis in the second world war then.

For fuck's sake, read a book and stop embarrassing yourself.
DrCribbens wrote:
johncourage Who do you think are the oppressors here?
DrCribbens wrote:
It's hard to imagine a less accurate assessment of the situation in the Middle East than this post.
DrCribbens wrote:
At least while he's lying about this he isn't supporting the British fascist party.
DrCribbens wrote:
monkwarrior Which bit of his statement is incorrect?

Also, you really don't want to get into a scriptural debate with me.
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats It's really difficult to give this subject the detail it deserves for someone so indoctrinated in propaganda on a place with so little room.

So, briefly:

* I didn't say anything about anyone starting wars. I merely mentioned the propaganda used to justify wars, which has mostly (but not exclusively) been from the republicans.
* By the time Bush had decided to go to war Saddam had actually started co-operating. That's why Bush was so intent on pulling the UN weapons inspectors out as quickly as possible. God forbid Saddam should start co-operating and Bush should lose his excuse for an invasion.
* Regardless of whether or not Saddam was co-operating, how is it OK to punish his helpless population for his actions? Don't forget, the US government were absolutely determined for the world to understand that they were acting as a liberating force on behalf of the Iraqi people. You can't have it both ways.
* The information about the effects of depleted uranium isn't mine. It comes from a lot of different sources, and your comments show a complete ignorance of the subject.

“The U.S. invasion of Iraq has left behind a legacy of cancer and birth defects suspected of being caused by the U.S. military’s extensive use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus.” Al Jazeera reporter Dahr Jamail

"From 2004 up to this day, we are seeing a rate of congenital malformations in the city of Fallujah that has surpassed even that in the wake of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that nuclear bombs were d’ pped on at the end of World War II.’” Democracy Now

“Thus last November, a group of British and Iraqi doctors petitioned the U.N. to investigate the alarming rise in birth defects at Fallujah’s hospitals. ‘Young women in Fallujah,’ they wrote ... are terrified of having children because of the increasing number of babies born grotesquely deformed, with no heads, two heads, a single eye in their foreheads, scaly bodies or missing limbs. In addition, young children in Fallujah are now experiencing hideous cancers and leukemias.’” 

etc etc

* Again, a sufficient answer to the PLO question would take up far more room and time than I have here, particularly as you would neither listen to nor understand it. I really really recommend reading The Great War for Civilisation by a very respected journalist called Robert Fisk who has spend almost his entire adult life living in and reporting on the Middle East. 

Which, of course, you won't. 
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats No, you're right. I was forgetting about Donald Rumsfeld and George W Bush, those famous democrats. (Obviously Donald Rumsfeld's propaganda only started after he'd decided not to be friends with Saddam any more).


Although I take your point that Clinton was almost as bad.

And if you don't think that UN sanctions led to terrible privations for the ordinary Iraqi civilians then you're more naive than I thought. Just putting aside for the moment the fact that Saddam killed his own people with the full knowledge and co-operation of the US when he was useful to them (ever wondered where he bought the chemicals he used to manufacture the gas that massacred the Kurds?), the point of this thread is why the US is so reviled. Look at it from an ordinary Iraqi's point of view. His family is starving. His kid has leukaemia from depleted uranium shells and he can't get any treatment for it because the UN, at the insistence of the US, has banned the import of medical equipment. Who would you blame? 

And I can't apologise enough if you think I've descended to insults. I know from almost every post you've ever made that you'd never stoop that low yourself.
DrCribbens wrote:
At least Monica Lewinsky consented.
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats So what if other people have invaded? How is that relevant? How does that change how the people of the Middle East view the west?

And I'm not talking about Islam either.

Your views are obviously informed by the republican propaganda and fake news being fed you by the MSM.
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats So because Saddam was an evil bastard it's ok for us to behave the way we do? It's OK for us to torture and murder people as long as we're a bit less obvious about it?
DrCribbens wrote:
5cats Just overlook the weapons of mass... oh, wait.

Your view of the situation is incredibly naive and simplistic. 

The reason that the majority of people in the middle east hate the west isn't because of them hating 'our freedom' or any other propaganda bullshit. It's because, as the post says, the western--predominantly American--armies have been butchering their civilians for years. Look at Iraq. Is it any wonder they hate us? UN sanctions--led by the US--starved their families. Their children died in their thousands because the sanctions prevented medical equipment from entering the country. Despite what we knew about its effects, the troops--mainly American--used ordinance with depleted uranium, causing whole waves of cancers, mainly in children. Despite promising not to, air strikes destroyed infrastructure, denying the civilian population access to power and clean water, which we then failed to repair. American soldiers kill civilians with impunity, to such a degree that Paul Bremer had to pass a law making it impossible for an American to be tried for murder after they killed an Iraqi.

Iraqis hate us because we murdered countless numbers of them in cold blood.

The situation in Iraq should be seen for what it was. It was never a liberation. It was an occupation by a hostile and lawless force, and apart from the initial euphoria, the population only ever saw it as that. Of course they hate us. Wouldn't you hate us in their shoes?

There's a very very good book you really should read called The Great War for Civilisation by a British journalist called Robert Fisk. It'll open your eyes.
DrCribbens wrote:
dromed Good job that post was less than 140 characters or I'd have lost interest halfway through reading it.
DrCribbens wrote:
I identify as someone who earns a lot more, but I'm not sure that makes any difference either.
DrCribbens wrote:
Oh God, here we go again...