Morch

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

.Pot calling the porcelain black.

7 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Of course Israel is within its rights to shoot dead people hurling rocks and things at the wall . Palestinians for what ever reason protesting their rights.

If you support this I guess you justify Kent State University shootings. Or that it would be acceptable for the USA to put miniguns on its border with Mexico. or that European nations should openly sink refugee boats?

Hamas may not be the best voice for the palestinian.

Of course Israel should not be recognised as a Jewish state anymore than i recognise any self proclaimed religious states. All faiths have the right to coexist.

Therefore Israel should declare itself a Secular state and cease discrimination against other faiths

And you are within your right to post pretty much whatever you like, inaccurate or irrelevant as it may be.

Not a word on them Palestinians carrying arms, setting up IED's or them not intending to cross the fence for a handshake and a cuppa. Protesting rights does not compel violence, nor does it imply protestors can do whatever they like. The bogus "examples" given as comparison fail to address that the case at hand deals with hostiles, led by an organization with a well known agenda and history of violence.

While issuing pronouncements on what Israel should be recognized at, you may want to look around the ME and apply the same to other countries, not holding my breath. Of course, not a word on the rulers of Gaza, the Hamas,  being an Islamic movement. Or for that matter, the Palestinian Constitution (yes, the one associated with the PA) referencing both Islam and Sharia as underlying concepts. Certainly no expectations of acknowledging that Jews often refer to themselves both as a religion and a group.

Regarding "discrimination against other faiths" - not that it's much on topic, really, but guess it's a matter of perspective. Relative to "the West", Israel certainly lags behind. Compared to how things are at its neighborhood - an altogether different story.

1 hour ago, Thorgal said:

 

From his article posted earlier as ‘balanced’ :

“No decent Palestinian society can emerge from the culture of victimhood, violence and fatalism symbolized by these protests.

No worthy Palestinian government can emerge if the international community continues to indulge the corrupt, anti-Semitic autocrats of the Palestinian Authority or fails to condemn and sanction the despotic killers of Hamas.

And no Palestinian economy will ever flourish through repeated acts of self-harm and destructive provocation.”

He wrote this eternal crapola from his eternal capital...


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

In your own "balanced" and "learned" view - can a decent Palestinian society emerge from a culture of victimhood, violence and fatalism symbolized by these protests? Can a worthy Palestinian government emerge given the international indulgence of the PA often corrupt, sometimes antisemitic leadership? Or despite the failure to condemn Hamas actions? How does setting up facilities benefited from, or engaging in other self-harm provocation assist Palestinian economy?

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

So the bottom line after your pedantic land survey is that: the Palestinian village of Huj ("of old" as you quaintly call it) has now been demolished by Israelis as were hundreds of other Palestinian villages and their inhabitants ethnically cleansed into Gaza in order to manufacture an artificial Jewish majority in Israel.

 

I was responding to a poster who seemed to think that the Palestinians have no right to cross the fence into Israel, as though they were aliens, when in fact it is the Israeli Jews who are the foreign invaders, and the Palestinians simply want to return home. Hence the name of their protest: the "Great March of Return".

Like Fisk, you seem to be more focused on the pushed narrative's theme, rather than it being accurate. Accordingly, it is quite alright for Fisk to carry an inaccurate "land survey", as long as it serves the cause - but the "pedantic" label applied when the inaccuracies are addressed.

And, of course, there was no denial of the tragedy as you try to spin, nor was it even the point. The post took issue with the "creative" use of facts in order to manufacture an "improved" narrative. IMO, that's unnecessary, you obviously feel differently.

The Palestinians do not, indeed have a "right" to cross the fence into Israel. Their supposed Right of Return does not entail that they can do so however and whenever they wish. Such things are usually resolved by diplomacy and negotiations, not rushing of fences.

The "simply want to return home" slogan is intentionally misleading. The homes alluded to no longer exist. There are other people living there now, and they've been there for decades. Nothing in your propaganda rendering addresses the issue, or the consequences of a violent Palestinian crowd actually managing to cross the fence and reaching the sites of their former homes. How the protests were labeled is immaterial.

1 hour ago, dexterm said:

Deliberate lies. No links as per usual. I have expressed sympathy for the loved ones of Israelis killed in the conflict, especially children. All lives cut short unnecessarily are tragedies. Whereas I have never heard a word of compassion from you, just cold blooded endorsement of the efficacy of using live ammunition to control crowds.

No, not lies. And no "links" as we've been through this numerous times, with you denying things even when provided with such (you'll probably deny even this - which, of course, you did in the past). You often make questionable comments when with regard to attacks occurring in Jerusalem and the West Bank. And you do employ the same argument about it being the parents' and/or the government's responsibility.

As for your standing complaint (which was addressed at least a couple of times on this topic alone) - not all of us feel the need for faux emotional exhibitionism, or see it as an appropriate point scoring tool. You'll notice I don't play this angle, or the sort of emotional drama others favor, with regard to Israeli casualties as well. Additionally, not all of posters  self-advertise being great "humanists" - those who do, may be rightfully called out when their double-standards become apparent.

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Doesn't mean they have to negotiate. Let SK do that, and if happy, tell USA to go home.

I think that boat sailed once Kim got a hold of his toys, and posted that clip...

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

If this were a private colloquy and if in fact we did have such discussions in the past, your comments about that being sufficient might make sense. But since this is a forum and  open to all, including those who might just  possibly  have been living  a life of prayer and fasting in remote caves up until recently and may have missed the points you may have raised in earlier threads, it doesn't.

And your reply still doesn't take into account the absolute and utter superiority of the South Korean Air Force.

Or the superior training and armament of its soldiers

Or the fact that North Korean soldiers suffer widely from malnutrition.

For North Korea to wage a war against a nation with an economy as mighty and resilient as the South's, means it would need one as well.It just doesn't have the resources. Not only is it massively poorer, its population is only about 40% of the South's.

Got to love the "if in fact we did..." bit - who do you think you're fooling? And may I point out, most posters commenting, following or clicking "likes" were similarly represented in them past topics. I get it that some feel the need to re-hash each and every bit over and over again, or pretend each instance of the same is a new one - but can't see there's a compulsion to oblige.

Let's try again, hopefully without you ignoring what I post in favor of your usual pointless argument-for-argument-sake style...

If taking the US military presence (and other related commitments) out of the equation, SK stands to lose a fair bit of deterrence - attacking SK is one thing, getting the US involved, a different ballgame.

I don't think North Korea's capabilities and circumstances make a scenario of it totally defeating and conquering SK a reality. It would take too long, stretch NK lines too far, and likely some international intervention would put a halt to such an effort.

A limited move, with limited goals is something else. If it could secure some element of surprise, then yes - I believe NK is capable of pulling through something as described in previous posts and topics. A swift strike, preferably crippling or taking out central decision making elements, then suggesting (or accepting) a cease-fire/truce. It doesn't necessarily follow that SK will be fully subjugated.

The significance of SK air-superiority advantage is somewhat dulled, if hostilities are planned ahead as a short-term, concentrated offensive, focusing on an urban area. Attacking NK's well fortified artillery positions or targeting enemy forces within a city aren't easy tasks (even currently, with US support). Bringing the SK air power to bear on NK targets is, again, something which would take longer to take effect. And that's without mentioning air-defenses.

The differences alluded to with regard to ground forces might also be countered under such a scenario. It's not as if all of NK's armed forces are useless, and for a limited scale operation, requiring limited resources, could utilize better equipped and trained units, rather than rely on masses. If there's no mass ground confrontation, the SK advantage will be of lesser consequence. Conducting a full scale ground counter-offensive on NK may take too long to carry out effectively.

If the target of such a limited move would be Seoul, the consequences and effects for SK's economy and governance could be dire. While I'm sure that SK got contingency plans, that's not quite the same thing as carrying them out. All the more so if several decision making nodes are simultaneously compromised.

As for the subject of the countries' economic disparity - a full-scale war, which may or may not drag on for weeks and months is definitely an issue (and in this sense, perhaps keeping NK on the edge of poverty may be a cynical national security consideration). But possibly less so for a limited move, especially if terms can be quickly negotiated.

IMO, NK may be more resilient to adversity and hardship, simply by the "virtue" of habit and the Kim family dictatorial rule. SK is richer, more advanced and whatnot - but perhaps this relies on peace time conditions maintained. It is also much more reliant on information technology, which is both a strength and a weakness. The usual issues of public opinion, internal divisions and all the package that comes with being a democracy may also be something of a mixed bag in some situations.

Alright, so maybe that's part of the "options" mentioned....

EU to start Iran sanctions blocking law process on Friday

https://www.reuters.com/article/iran-nuclear-eu-response/eu-to-start-iran-sanctions-blocking-law-process-on-friday-idUSL5N1SO4W2

I've no idea how long the "process to activate" is, or what does this blocking amounts to in real terms. Wonder how the  decision making process went - probably not the same effects for all EU members. And yeah, same as with the US sanctions on Iran, someone's probably making a killing on certain angles of these power plays.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

One thing you're leaving out: the North has virtually no air force. Pretty hard to wage an offensive without air cover. Come to think of it, make that virtually impossible.

There are lots of other things you're leaving out too, but this one is decisive.

I'm not leaving it out - it was discussed to death on past topics. You've participated in at least some of them topics, back when you were looking for your password.

NK is poised to strike Seoul (and other targets) using artillery. I think that on a surprise attack, they could inflict serious casualties and damage, disrupt commerce and governance. If they would manage to generate enough shock and awe in a short  period of time, well...lets say I doubt SK resilience. More so, perhaps with regard to the civilian/political elements.

Not necessarily referring to a scenario in which Kim-takes-all. That would require a whole lot more to go wrong. But a limited scope move - that's a different ballgame.

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You just doubt it? I am sure that they are not eager. But that observation has exactly what to do with the respective strength of the North's armed forces vs. the South's?

Try reading the second line, perhaps.

The SK armed forces may indeed be formidable. But, leaving the US military presence and commitments out of it, I think that NK is better poised when it comes to effective offensive capabilities, inflicting meaningful damage and possibly making decisive moves. This being due to means already in place, command structure and decision making more authoritative, plus a known amount of ruthlessness (or callousness) with regard to relevant norms.

IMO, other than the US military presence and commitments, another major factor working in favor of SK is the Kims probably being weary of the internal effects a war might have relating their rule.

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

That and the fact the South Korea has far more formidable armed forces than the north. 

I doubt that SK is eager to test the strength of your argument.

Artillery. Seoul. Ruthlessness.

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You familiar with the phrase "Not seeing the forest for the trees?" You're like a botanist who knows the names of all the trees and is busily identifying them but never noticing that Burnham wood is marching to Dunsinane.

I doubt you're an authority on either forests or trees, when it comes to the topic's subject matter and related issues.

Not interested much in your petty insults or judgements, thanks.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Yes there was nothing said about political factions not playing a part. And there was nothing said about political factions and public opinion playing a part. It's the elephant in the room you somehow failed to mention. I think willful blindness is an accurate depiction of your approach. The alternative would be to say that you know little of the situation in Israel. Which is clearly not the case.

I didn't fail to mention or address it, stop making things up. I simply don't accept your interpretation, which makes your notion into the deciding factor in this. Not when it relies on your asserting things as fact on the force of nothing much.

That you misleadingly try to frame it as an either/or thing, of accepting your point of view or the recent pet term employed is just one of them ways you "debate" (if it can be called that).

Quote

The alternative would be to say that you know little of the situation in Israel. Which is clearly not the case.

Applying your "logic", it would seem that since I am supposedly well informed, I should accept the point of view of someone obviously not as informed.

43 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

 

Yes the gray and technocratic state of Israel where political factions play little, if any part, in the government allocation of resources. Are there any factions in the present government coalition that would support a more humane treatment of Palestinian protesters? If so, how powerful are they compared to those who would advocate for the opposite? There's a concept in law called "willful blindness". Basically it states that if you should have known, then you are responsible for knowing even if you claim otherwise. Your willful blindness is simply not believable.

You insist on implying things which weren't present in my posts, as you often do. The "technocratic" bit is particularly inane, guess you skipped that bit by the late Rabin. And obviously, there was nothing said about political factions not playing their part.

You seem to postulate that the investing more in non-lethal means would  constitute "a more humane treatment of Palestinian protestors", and that supposedly the main motivator in that investment not materializing is decidedly political (and correct me if I'm wrong, perhaps even sinister?).

IMO, there could be some of that, certainly. At least from some of the more extreme politicians. But that it played a major, active role is somewhat far-fetched if all its based upon is your own interpretation. Many a times, the attitude exhibited by the current coalition members regarding such reports amounts to deflection, obfuscations and off-hand assurances things will be addressed. This often doesn't happen, unless a crisis ensues. It seems to run deeper than politics, but more to do with culture of governance (or rather, lack of).

Not interested much in your petty insults or judgements, thanks.

31 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

lol.  I'm  sure as a  devotee to your  indoctrinated idealism  you  will  forever  have   such  troubles. 

 

Waffle aimed at covering you either don't have a clue or can't clearly articulate your views.

Not aware that I'm a devotee of anything, let alone your made up nonsense.

On 5/16/2018 at 3:49 PM, sirineou said:

as a show of good faith 

That's ought to cut both ways. Did it?

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

Just cut the US out and have talks between North and South Korea.

Doubt the SK's are daft.

1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Hmmm.  The  present  context is as  it  is  mainly  based  on  historical facts. That being  that the shabby  denial of  Gaza inhabitants   objections are  of  material fact.

The  fact that they are  of  Muslim  faith  is key to  the denial  by  virtue of  the  fact that   anything  remotely  antisemite  is  taboo whilst  muslims are fair  game!

It  has just  been a  turn of  the   coin to a  selective advantage.

Once more, having some trouble following what you're on about or how it begins to relate to my post.

12 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Time for Europe to free itself from " big brother USA " , time they find and go their own way and not only obey ... WW II is long gone , times have changed a lot since .

The present american President is not a friend of the EU , he only looks for profit and more power and his politics bring trouble .

There are a lot of options for the EU ...

"There are a lot of options for the EU ..."

Such as...?

I'm not disagreeing what passes for Trump's foreign policy and policy making seems chaotic and daft. And certainly, the way he treats allies is bizarre, to put it mildly. In real terms, though (that is, not fiery posts on forums) what effective options does the EU have? And what would be the costs/consequences associated with them?

It's all very well to say stuff like let's ditch the US, but that's pretty much emulating Trump's way of doing things. IMO, going this way might severely hurt the EU in the long run. Ultimately, adopting Trump ways runs against the core concepts of the EU - so giving rise to such populist trends might become a norm applied to other situations, possibly to relations between members.

8 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

And  where  is  that a  refutation of actual  basis of the  historical facts. Sharon's family  graves are the  basis  of what ?

I'm sure you meant something, just not sure what.

There was no attempt to refute historical fact, but to point out that Fisk's use of connecting historical facts to present context is somewhat "creative". That's also a reoccurring feature of many posts on here, and also those of the poster replied to. The Sharon anecdote was simply to demonstrate that there's no call for that sort of thing - enough real material to work with.

1 minute ago, notmyself said:

 

You said 'if they had such muscle' and Trump has publically stated it. The question then moves to is the muscle is being used and if so, to what end. This very subject shows that it is being used and that it is being used very poorly .... to detriment of 'others'. It's a crying shame really because such muscle could be used for far greater purposes. All this death on both sides for a piece of land with no oil under it.

 

That's not a point, but taking my words out of context. Here they are again:

Quote

As for your conclusion - if Israel is backed by such muscle, then there are smarter, wiser ways of addressing the situation than picking a futile fight. There are other ways of resisting an occupation or a blockade, and there are better ways of to improve the lot of your people.

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1038253-israeli-forces-kill-dozens-in gaza as-us-embassy-opens-in-jerusalem/?page=14&tab=comments#comment-12988432

The point made wasn't about denying US support, but highlighting that the Palestinians way of addressing things could be smarter and wiser. As for the merits of what passes for Trump's foreign policy or policy making, I don't think we are in much disagreement.

5 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>The fence.. is on Israëli land, so.. when anyone is at that fence, he/she is IN ISRAEL, just a few hundred meters away from Israëli settlemts.

 

Of course, Israel is the only country in the world that officially recognizes this border.

 

You also fail to mention that 70% of the Palestinians themselves or their parents or grandparents once lived on the land of those Israeli settlements .. what a quaint euphemism that is that masks the violence of ethnic cleansing under which they were established. Some of those Palestinians expelled had even helped the Jewish militias against the British, only later to be cleared off their land.

 

Sderot is one such close to the fence settlement that you mention. It lies on the ruins of the Palestinian village Huj, some of whose refugee inhabitants were no doubt in the OP demonstrations who simply want to go home.

 

The suffering of Sderot: how its true inhabitants were wiped from Israel's maps and memories
The people of Huj - now almost forgotten - had helped the Jewish Haganah army escape the British. The thanks they got was to be sent into Gaza as refugees

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-suffering-of-sderot-how-its-true-inhabitants-were-wiped-from-israels-maps-and-memories-8348734.html
 

You can always be counted upon to pull some not-directly related, biased, historical "account" when no worthwhile comment on the topic at hand is possible.

The same Fisk piece was linked by you years ago (literally) on another topic, while posting pretty much a similar rant. As back then, I'll highlight the creative license employed by Fisk in order to make a more emotionally compelling point.

Fisk goes on about Huj. And the story of Huj is worth telling, because even in the context of that war, the injustice was blatant, and the treatment unfair. Fisk also goes on about Sderot - which back then was quite a bit in the news, what with rockets launched from Gaza and such. Linking Huj to Sderot is all very well, only Huj wasn't really were Sderot is.

Sderot (and another settlement, Or Haner) was founded on the lands previously comprising the village of Najd. Najd doesn't feature as much in Fisk's story, though, because it doesn't create quite the same "equation". Relations between Najd and its Israeli (well, Jewish back then) neighbors weren't as great. But Huj does make for a much better emotional angle, so why waste that?

Huj was situated a bit to the South East of Najd (nowadays Sderot). The nearby Israeli settlement of Dorot (mentioned in the link) was founded in 1941 on lands bought from Huj villagers. After the war, most of Huj's lands were joined with Dorot's.

If Fisk wasn't busy constructing an inaccurate account, he could possibly have made a more accurate and emotional account by figuring out that the nearest site to Huj of old, is a hill, where Ariel Sharon's family graves are located.

@notmyself

And your point would be...what?

5 hours ago, dexterm said:

Strawman fallacy. You fantasize about reading posters' minds and create a hypothetical (notice future tense)"just to say that if tomorrow, god forbid, there will be"..."many on this forum will BE HAPPY and clap their hands in colectiv glee", then attack the phoney construct you have just created using the present tense as though your strawman is real. "this is very sad"

 

I notice no sympathy whatsover for the very real people, including children, paraplegics and press, who lost their lives because IDF snipers clinically selected them for execution. You dehumanize and blame the victims.

"You dehumanize and blame the victims."

You do that quite often when casualties are on the other side. But guess that's quite alright.

8 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

 

You failed to re-construct the actions of the victims into a timeline.

Moreover, you’ve put the fingerprints of the victims on a smoking gun during investigation. The smoking gun never belonged to the victims.

You’ve never mentioned the name of the killer in front of the audience...




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

I wasn't required to "re-construct" anything. You asked a question, and I answered to the best of my knowledge. There was never a claim to know what each and every Palestinian killed or injured did at a given time. Some incidents got published with more details, other did not.

The rest of your crapola - "smoking gun", "investigation", "audience" - you seem to imagine that you're in some court of law or something. Let me assure you this is not the case, and that it's doubtful anyone would mistake you for a legal expert.