Morch

23 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

And if the resolution had "mentioned Hamas once," would Haley voted for it?

Clearly her proposed resolution ...

... placing no fault on Israel is a one-sided approach to what is a two-sided problem.

 

Yep, goes that extra mile beyond the Negroponte doctrine. Guess this relates both to the theme set by Trump's administration, and Haley's own political ambitions.

13 minutes ago, DeaconJohn said:

The fact of Israeli isolation by the international community is expressed in many ways.

The recent UN vote was one of them.

With the exception of the trusty old US, not one vote supported Israel. 

That's nice. But then you're ignoring that not all votes were in favor, and that the vote did not amount to the level of condemnations and hatred often expressed in your (and others') posts. That's simply a bit of creative co-opting.

As for "isolation" - do tell. Did many countries cut their relations with Israel or anything of the sort?

And obviously, your previous comment was a bit more nonsensical than that, eh?

9 minutes ago, Elfin said:

Morch, I am not just "whining" on what is printed here, but I am also reading what NGO's are publishing about this sick crime as well.

You are lamely trying to deflect facts, by making bogus claims on bias.

The facts stand that there were instances of Palestinians using ambulances (and hospitals, schools, mosques and reporter badges) in terrorist or violent actions. You claimed this was "pure propaganda". It obviously isn't. Unless your claim is that the facts are fabricated - can't see where you're going with this.

1 hour ago, nobodysfriend said:

Do you really think they wanted to " invade " Israel ?

I think they knew that they would not survive this ... they went there to protest and the response was violent which led to more violence ...

They did not all want to become " martyrs "

Considering you do not exhibit a very informed take on facts, there's little reason to assume that your insights regarding the motivations of protesters are solid.

I'd advise looking up Hamas leadership's speeches before and during the protests. Or paying attentions to the slogans used during the protests themselves.

1 hour ago, nobodysfriend said:

The USA and Israel ...real close friends ...

 

From the BBC : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44167900

 

The UN human rights chief says Israel used "wholly disproportionate" force against Palestinian border protests which have left over 100 people dead.

Yes, because the the UN human rights bodies are balanced and objective. Disproportionate would be an apt description of their focus on Israel, while investing much less efforts in other global issues, regardless of their severity. Another point worth contemplating on is the list of countries seating on these bodies - not exactly the paragons of human rights there.

1 minute ago, nobodysfriend said:

The problem is the hate is too big already ... if Israel would agree to a palestinian state , that could be a first step to peace ...

Topic is about the Gaza Strip, hence Hamas. Hamas is not particularly into accepting Israel or a permanent peace. Making biased, simplistic wide brush comments about the conflict is one way of derailing such topics.

@DeaconJohn

What "fact"? Oh, you mean the faulty bit of bogus reasoning you present as "fact"?

5 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Oh , come on , don't be such a hypocrite ... if they would not be shot on the border directly , they would die a few meters behind it ... Israel was well prepared for this with tanks etc ...

Guess you misunderstood the point. If there would have been a mass breach of the fence by the Palestinians, the death toll would have been significantly higher. If someone imagines that is a better option, I would like to understand how and why.

2 minutes ago, Elfin said:

The Sydney Morning Herald has many pro-Israeli journalists and the Washington Post is often accused by peace groups of presenting biased opinions that whitewash the imbalance of the 2 sides.

Allow me to take what you define "pro-Israeli" with a grain (or truckload) of salt. Accepting such claims on the force of your point of view is not an option. The Washington Post often carries articles critical of Israel's government and policies.

And still no explanation why make faux whines about this, while accepting Hamas reports as gospel.

If you got to deflect, try harder.

2 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

About Hamas :

 

It is absolutely inhuman and disrespectful to human life to bring their own people in a situation where they are risking their lives for publicty puposes .

These are not nice people , they exploit their own people , just to damage the reputation of Israel ( whatever is left of this ... )

 

My sympathy is with the simple palestinian farmer who grows olive trees on his land for generations , and suddenly sees his trees burned down and destroyed by Israeli soldiers who tell him that he has got only little time to move away and never come back , or they would burn his house and family .

 

It is the simple people that I like , the ones that cultivate the earth , that work hard with their hands for a small income , just enough to survive ... and consequently lose everything because they do not have the power to protect themselves  ... and anyway , how could they  ?

The Palestinians could always opt for replacing their leaderships, if these fail them (and IMO, they do). Most of what you posted is irrelevant to the Gaza Strip, though. And while it may apply to the West Bank (and it should certainly be denounced and resisted), the Palestinians living there are still better off then their brothers in the Gaza Strip.

1 minute ago, wabothai said:

I just can't get it by me that snipers are used against protesters.

 

No wonder the increasing world wide hatred versus the israeli government and its 'defenders'.

Applying labels like "protesters" is one way to represent things. Another would be to actually have a clue what comes under this label. If one's idea of a legitimate protest includes using firearms, planting IED's, trying to storm borders and army positions, or setting fire to fields - perhaps things are seen differently.

Not a whole lot of informed suggestions as to better, effective ways of deterring such actions (even from those not blinkered enough to outright deny them). Not a whole lot of thought applied to how things would pan out if a mass breach of the fence would take place.

41 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Ok , just checked the term " Nazi " ...it seems this term is exclusivley reserved for the german Nazis from WW II .

So that was not the right word to use than ... so what about Israels strong Nationalism that is disrespecting human lifes and rights ... does that sound better to you >>>?

Nope, that would simply be you trolling. It's not like "strong nationalism" doesn't play a part on either side of the fence, or that it is not a factor when it comes to Palestinian violence. Also, this line of "reasoning" ignores the fact that protests were violent, and that letting protestors cross over is not an option.

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Who's to say the Palestinians didn't intentionally shoot her to keep this issue on the nightly news shows around the world. I would not put this beyond Hamas for a single nanosecond. I do have trouble believing that an Israeli soldier would intentionally shoot an unarmed nurse rendering aid. One side in this conflict has credibility and it is not Hamas.

You can find it hard to believe, but like any army, it's not like all IDF actions are acceptable or legit. Wouldn't be a first. And while the Hamas will obviously exploit this to the max (same goes for some posters), doubt theories she was intentionally shot by her own got much to rely on.

44 minutes ago, Elfin said:

Morch, I appreciate that you try to present a balanced view sometimes, but your sources for "weapons in the ambulance" stories appear to be all pro-Israeli publications.

Only that's not quite the case. Two out of the four sources linked aren't Israeli. Three out of the four sources linked cannot be described as "pro-Israeli publications". As for "balanced view", doubt accepting Hamas reports without any doubts applies.

1 hour ago, Julia Ey said:

no, my dog is absolutely friendly. 

Some people don't like dogs. Some people are afraid of dogs.

You don't give all that many details on what exactly happened, so hard to form an opinion.

If it's a tourist, and a one-time thing, plus the dog not getting hurt - a bit on the futile side following this.

If you think this could come again, then maybe something that's related to your dog's behavior, or the way you handle/control it in public.

43 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

hardly the place for a discussion of the pros and cons

Thanks for making my point once more. Many posters do favor populist views, one liners and emotional outbursts over "discussion". As we've been there, done that - didn't really expect any coherent or meaningful reply.

27 minutes ago, Elfin said:

Where is your evidence for this? Do you want the Palestinians to just give in, lay down and die? They are different to you and have every right to protest and resist!

And where is the evidence that the Hamas version is correct? Or that the anonymous accounts reported are true? That you take them as such doesn't mean a whole lot.

There's quite a range of options between making bad choices, over and over again (often involving pointless violence) and "just give in, lay down and die" (which no one but yourself actually offered).

The Palestinians do have every right to protest and resist, This does not amount to some carte blanche giving license for whatever (especially when it comes to violence). Nor does it imply that Israel is required to put up with such actions without response.

1 hour ago, DeaconJohn said:

Hamas can be legitimately blamed for a lot of things, but not this.

Give one example - anywhere in the world - where people are being shot dead for approaching a border fence. 

The vast majority of those killed didn't have "incendiary devices and grenades", they were shot down in cold blood.

On this issue the whole world is against the US and Israel... and rightly so.

I doubt that the Palestinian protests could be described as people "approaching the fence", unless one was trying real hard to erase uncomfortable context and facts.

At least half of those killed were Hamas personnel. Some of which (or many, depending on which reports are followed) were engaged in violent actions against the IDF or trying to sabotage the border fence.

And that you claim "the whole world" doesn't actually make it factual or true.

2 hours ago, Elfin said:

No, but I can read.

More to do with comprehension skills, and applying some reasoned criticism.

The account of her death, as presented in the OP,  is based on an anonymous witness report. I'll venture your readiness to accept such as gospel is more to do with standing bias.

To be clear, I'm pretty sure she was shot by the IDF. Things going down exactly as described is something that can be questioned.

It wouldn't be the first time the IDF denies claims it shot someone it shouldn't have. It wouldn't be a first if it turns out facts don't match the Palestinian narrative.

30 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

they obviously dont agree  with your analysis. In the long run the world might well turn out to be a better place if america is taken down a peg or two.

Not seeing much by way of reasoned counter-analysis on offer. Even the above amounts to a one-liner assertion, which rests on "in the long run" and "might" - without actually addressing anything in a meaningful way. What "a better place" amounts to, or how the US being taken "down a peg or two" may contribute to such, aren't discussed.

It is understandable many people would like to see things "changed" - even if they do not agree on what these changes ought to be. IMO, this desire for change if easily harnessed and co-opted, and not necessarily in service of something which leads to anything "better".

What is on offer nowadays,  are mainly populist memes and positions. It's one thing to support a reform, a whole different ball game when advocating anarchy and chaos.

10 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

there's been enough global chaos and now some folks are anxious to see america reap a bit of what it has sown. a natural reaction

 

I'm well aware some posters tend to react over-emotionally, without thinking things through. That was the point made. Thanks.

Don't know if they still have them, but a few years ago there was a "limo" service offered from the Siam Paragon (cars were either Camry or Mu-7). Fixed price, about 400 baht, I think. Used them a few times, when the taxi queue was too long, taxi drivers too annoying or having too many parcels. So I guess this works out about the same - expensive compared to regular taxis, but not terribly so. As others said, a bit similar to cars available at the airport.

Main selling point (for me) would be if drivers  could speak passable English, and be somewhat more familiar with the concept of driving safely.