Morch

7 minutes ago, johng said:

They say black ones have the best taste.

But that's racist!

3 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

I seriously think it will be decades before the people will permit the UK Government to offer military support to the US in an operational theatre again. I think listening to Trudeau it will also be some time before Canadians will be sent to die on the battlefield with their US Brothers in Arms. All UK, European and Canadian  military forces should be withdrawn from any military theatre where they are offering support to the USA. The US should also now be charged premium market rates for all land they currently occupy in airfields and military bases throughout Europe. If the US want isolation then lets give it to them on a plate. I am truly sickened by the message Trump has sent. The worst thing is he is also wrong, he thinks Canada are making billions in trade on the rate of export/import from the US, yet the truth is it is the other way around. It is completely laughable.

Decades...well, decades ago the UK was at war with Germany etc., so don't know how much trust I'd place in your predictions. Especially considering nothing of this magnitude actually happened here.

Unless mistaken, the US military presence in Europe is by agreement and invitation. Could be changed, of course, but maybe not the most prudent or wise of moves.

The US wants isolation? I don't think so. Trump might (to the extent he grasps the implications), but Trump isn't the US. Thought reading comments on this forum would make this trivial. Basically what you offer amounts to being successfully trolled by Trump.

9 minutes ago, buick said:

maybe the russians can do it.  i believe they supplied the arms/equipment that the israeli's used back in 1948.  maybe israel still gives them some credit for that.  iran and russia are somewhat friendly so that might be okay for the palestinians.  whoever does do it, has to be tough, can't walk away after one of their's dies.  china and russia might fit that bill.

Russia was reluctant about committing troops to monitor supposed safe-zones in Syria. I don't know that they are up to getting involved in yet another quagmire. As for them being trusted by Israel - very doubtful. There's a sort of functional understanding and coordination, but trust isn't part of it.

As for the Palestinians - which leadership would sign up for this? And which would be held accountable? The Fatah controlled PA or the Hamas? 

A UN mission which will focus on keeping the peace, without dealing with other aspects (such as arms smuggling and productions) would simply be setting the stage for the next round.

4 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

It looks like the USA have totally frakked it up then. The UK don't feel much respected at the moment, and just how many did we send to Afghanistan and Iraq to be slaughtered and maimed? Frakk Mattis, Trump and the USA.

Vehemence and hyperbole aside, do you seriously expect the ties between the US and the UK will not survive Trump's term in office? IMO, that was what Mattis's words were about. There will be a whole lot to mend two years hence, but I think relations will be, more or less, restored.

5 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Again : It is time to have objectivly reported what happens over there , too many lies , If you want to know details , ask Erdogan who originally made that proposition ...

Not my job here to discuss details with somebody who does not seem to be able to understand

In short, you have no real clue, just think it would be a "very good idea", and you are "sure" it could be carried out. Doubt Erdogan is either an authority on the matter or that he could be called "objective".

2 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Stop to put words in my mouth that I have not said , PC

No words were "put in your mouth". I pointed out that your comment was how you present things - and that it is not necessarily much to do with reality. In reality, Israelis and Palestinians did negotiate, and despite a whole lot of things there is a level of cooperation between the sides.

Such negotiations are usually carried out between rivals sides, enemies, whatever. That's how it works.

3 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Arrogance at it's best ... It is not my job here to discuss what countries could participate in an UN peace force , I am sure that can be established , even you will not like it ..

Arrogance would be to claim to be "sure" something of this magnitude can be achieved, without actually bothering to address how.

7 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

What options would that be ? Negotiate with someone who wants to see you dead ?

That is how you present things. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with reality. If one doesn't negotiate with enemies, who then? And if you wish to imply negotiations are impossible - what's the answer then? More futile, pointless violence?

3 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

You really are a simple mind ... she is dead , shot . that's a fact . may be she did not raise her hands , may be she was not running .. she just was a young woman not a threat to the Israelis who brutally murdered her .

That is fact . Alll you suppositions are completly worthless , you just try to find excuses , boring ...

An international peace force is a very good idea , I know what that means ,  but you seem to be too arrogant ( the Israeli style ) to understand ... So , tell me about your 'reasoning ' I am curious to know ...

Where I come from we have a word for people like you , but I will not be allowed to post that here ...

Anyway , my dear , the facts talk a very clear language , even if you not seem to be able to understand ...

I haven't argued that she wasn't dead. Or that she wasn't shot by the IDF.

That doesn't mean I have to embrace either the account presented in the OP or the narrative you push.

You may thing that an "international peace force" is a "very good idea" - yet no explanation as to why. Same goes when it comes to the "how" of it.

Not interested in your petty insults.

What a cluster <deleted> of a presidency.

I understand the US wishing to correct (if that's the right term) some long-standing trade issues. And yes, in some ways trade partners might have been unfair (perhaps more applicable to China, though). But that's no way to handle things - not when you need other countries' cooperation and support on other matters.

Doubt Trump would be around for another term, or that another quite like him will be elected. The next POTUS would have to work hard mending relations with the world, but don't see the US dollar being dropped, or the US shunned. That said, countries will probably be more serious thinking of alternatives.

6 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

It is difficult to negotiate with someone who wants to kill you ...that goes for both sides .

Yeah, so makes more sense to keep up the violence, what?

If you are the obviously weaker side, and you're failing to get what you want through violence - perhaps a better choice would be to explore other options, rather than doing the same old.

7 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Pure supposition ...

Thanks. Do you get the point about things not being factual yet? As in, anyone can come up with a version. It's not like that the version appearing in the OP is verified - but that seems to be ok with you.

3 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

A witness is a witness , even anonymus ... i guess this has been seen by more than one person ...

It really is time to send an international UN " peace force " over there , just as Erdogan said . He's right even I do not like him ...

Time that it is properly documented what happens really over there !

Err no. That doesn't actually carry much weight. You have no idea who the person is, if he has any relevant affiliations, or if he even saw what he  claims. If your "a witness is a witness" nonsense would apply, there wouldn't be any point to proving anything anyway.

And while you may advocate an "international UN peace force" you may wish to actually have a clue on what that means. Not expecting your "analysis" or "reasoning" to go beyond simplistic statements - so no point in asking who will take part, and how this will work. Details aren't important for some.

The last line is amusing, considering how you started your post. But hey, consistency is over-rated by some.

13 minutes ago, thaiguzzi said:

 

 

 

And there you have it folks.

Completely fair and normal warfare - sticks and stones vs tanks, snipers and anything else a modern army can muster.

Kids, women and old men against trained soldiers. People just want their land back. Some of it. A bit of it.

Meanwhile, Europe and the USA just look the other way.

hey, they are only Arabs...

hey, can't say anything bad about the Jews...…..

Pathetic.

The notion that warfare is supposed to be fair is a fine one, but war isn't actually a schoolyard or a boxing ring.

As for "sticks and stones", sure thing - if you want to ignore that there were firearms, IED's, hand grenades and incendiary devices used by the Palestinians as well. Yes, the IDF is much better equipped, kindly read the first line again.

And "kids, women and old men" - About half of those killed were Hamas/Islamic Jihad operatives. Even if your "point" had something to go on, perhaps wide to dwell on the qualities of a leadership sending forth  "kids, women and old men" in harms' way.

Just want some of their land back says poster. Well, Hamas leadership speeches before and during the protests, went a wee bit further than that. As in take it all. While egging their people on. Violence didn't get the Palestinian anywhere in these last 70 years. What's the point of doing more of the same? Had they chosen compromise and negotiations, they'd be in a better state right now.

As for international reactions - maybe not all are quite as blinkered an uninformed.

15 minutes ago, car720 said:

So this nurse, in a snipers crosshairs, with her hands in the air and a white uniform was carrying grenages and incendiary devices????

Come on.  Whoever took the shot knew they were taking the shot.  Gutless mongrels.

The details you present aren't verified. And yes, the same goes for nonsense implications she was carrying grenades and such. I could imagine, though, someone hit standing near or behind a person targeted.

Just now, car720 said:

I wonder if they will ever tell us, of the total number of casualties, how many were shot in the back.  Another action of a coward.

The casualty figures (courtesy of the Hamas run Ministry of Health in Gaza) are advertised. Details included. Whether you take them as gospel is another matter. Guess its easier to post conspiracy one-liners then to actually be informed.

16 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

What circumstances ? She was running with her hands raised to help an injured person - that are the circumstances .

Once more - how do you know she was "running with her hands raised to help an injured person"? This is based on an anonymous witness. That's not a fact.

41 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Currently 47 nations including many "paragons" of human rights such as US allies, US trade partners and even the US itself. In the real world of global politics it's difficult to "Separate the wheat from the chaff." But thus far the consensus of the UNHRC has been against the US that seems more than often the chaff than the wheat.

When US Ambassador Haley is acting as a human rights advocate, she occupies a space the rest of the U.S. leadership has all but abandoned.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/27/nikki-haley-the-occasional-activist-trump-un-human-rights/

Such as her immediate boss POTUS Trump.

Latest UN "human rights related" resolution on this was supported by countries such as Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. Motions regarding Israel represent almost a half of what is dealt with. Considering there are "a few" more acute and  more lethal crises, one would be hard not to call it a spade.

But then again:

Saudi Arabia elected to UN women's rights commission

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-un-womens-right-commission-un-watch-middle-east-muslim-driving-clothes-a7698536.html

Syria Is Now In Charge of the UN's Disarmament Efforts. Really.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/syria-is-now-in-charge-of-the-uns-disarmament-efforts-really/561386/

Muslim states block 11 LGBT groups from attending UN Aids meeting

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/muslim-states-united-nations-lgbt-groups-aids-meeting

4 minutes ago, car720 said:

Any thinking man knows who controls the UN and who controls them.

1 minute ago, nobodysfriend said:

If it's a bullet commonly used by Israelian snipers , it would prove a lot ...

 

do I really have to explain everything ...?

It would prove that she was shot by the IDF (which I think is obvious), but wouldn't prove the circumstances presented in the OP.

Just now, nobodysfriend said:

Of course not !

 

Israeli tanks and snipers would have killed them all ... we all know this ...!

Some progress. If you accept this point, then deterring the protesters from breaching the fence, and thus avoiding such a (worse) scenario would make sense. This isn't to condone Israel's response - I don't think it was even-handed or "proportionate" (which is a bogus term anyway), just saying that the other options were possibly worse.

3 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

That is the topic ... and the facts are that the nurse got  shot .

Your strategy seems to derail the discussion about this and to try to find an ' acceptable ' justification about what happened .

She is dead , and , come on , who believes that she got shot by her own people ?

I hope that the bullet that killed her will prove what happened .

More nonsense.

It is a fact that she got shot. Never said anything about her being shot by her own people, quite the opposite. That things happened quite the way presented in the OP can be questioned, as it is based on anonymous witness. I don't know what you imagine the "bullet that killed her" will prove.

Acceptable? Not in a moral sense, no. Acceptable as in such things happen in these clashes? Yes, a fact of life.

3 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Yes , I said the 2 state solution could be the first step to peace ...

That is as off topic as your always same rhetorics , so let's go back to the topic , because these discussions about how israel shoud react to the enormous threat by the palestinian stonethrowers leads to nothing , just a waste of time , because there is no will or even try to understand what each other says ... just the usual blabla ... boring

What you actually said was ".... if Israel would agree to a palestinian state , that could be a first step to peace ... ". That's just another one-sided way of putting thing. And it goes ignore the fact that Hamas is not into that. The topic being about the Gaza Strip, and the Hamas, that's quite an elephant to ignore.

Nothing in my posts about "Palestinian stone throwers" - that's how you choose to paint it, plus the obvious spin.

There is no argument that the death toll is high. The point made is simple (I think) - if a Palestinian mob was to breach the wall, does someone have any illusions that the death toll would have been way higher?

7 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Wrong - this topic is about " Israeli army kills Palestinian nurse in Gaza border protest - medics - "

 

may be better to stay on the topic instead of wasting time with the usual blabla about how poor Israel can protect itself from it's enemies ...?

You are the one who brought up some nonsense simplistic comment about solving the conflict. It was pointed out that the OP deals with the Gaza Strip (so, not "wrong"), and accordingly, the Hamas (which pretty much controls the protests - so not "wrong", again).

Your nonsense comment was addressed and debunked. Guess inane deflections are the way to go when you can't handle that. There was nothing in my posts about "how poor Israel can protect itself from it's enemies" - that's just some made up nonsense you threw in.

7 minutes ago, Elfin said:

Morch, unfortunately I am very busy at the moment, and while I have been finding the time to occasionally post on here, I will go through my files to refute your accusations when I have more free time.

You could have just copy/pasted this excuse from previous topics.

As for "accusations" - again, not too clear if you're actually claiming facts are fabricated or going off tangent trying to "establish" some supposed "bias". For argument's sake, even if there was such "bias", it wouldn't alter the facts. Note that most sourced linked are also often used by posters expressing anti-Israel positions.