Your response is?

There is lots of accusations and threats from the UN, but very little proof. Surprise, surprise!

The BBC is hardly Pro-Israel" by the way.

Do you really think most countries would just ignore rockets being fired at them every day for months at a time by a small terrorist-governed territory? Why don't you point out a country that has done so.

I agree. I don't think any country would sit back and do nothing if a neighbouring country were to continuously lob mortars and rockets at it. Do you think that if Hamas decided to start lobbing rockets into Egypt instead of Israel that Egypt would just bow down and take it ?

I have never once said that they should sit back and take it, I actually said that Hamas needs to be either isolated or destroyed and that they have actually committed war crimes themselves.

I also stated that I seriously doubt every country would do the same, that is kill 400 children, or were they all used as shields?

I very much doubt that all the sophisticated armies of this world would roll into a territory and flatten largely innocent bystanders, proportionality, whatever spin you want to put on it, is out of all balance to the civillians who had nowhere to go.

You asked for examples, the UK didn't roll into the six counties killing 400 children after decades of outrages, Ireland didn't roll into the six counties in revenge for the '74 Dublin bombs, different perspectives and instances obviously, but a peace of sorts has come from a centuries old impasse.

Where will this lead. Peace or continued war??

The British had their own ways of dealing with the Irish, but secret Death Squads wouldn't work in Gaza.

The inside story of British death squads in Northern Ireland

British military operations have ended in Northern Ireland. Simon Basketter reveals how a campaign to terrorise Catholics was orchestrated by military intelligence

Operation Banner: An Analysis Of Military Operations In Northern Ireland is the official history of an occupation that started in 1969 and formally ended on 31 July this year.

The book is co-written by General Mike Jackson, who was second in command of the Parachute Regiment when they shot dead 14 unarmed people after a civil rights march in Derry. He was later to command British forces during the invasion of Iraq.

According to the official history, the conflict in Northern Ireland was about two warring tribes, the Catholics and Protestants, who had to be kept apart for their own sakes by British soldiers.

But in reality the occupation of Northern Ireland was brutal, repressive and murderous. Far from keeping “warring tribes” apart, military intelligence recruited, trained and armed Loyalist murder gangs in Northern Ireland, ordering them to carry out a series of assassinations.

The latest source to shed light on the death squads run by the British army in Northern Ireland is known only as “John Black”. He is a convicted Loyalist terrorist.

Black alleges that he – along with dozens of other members of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), a Loyalist terror organisation – were trained and armed by British military intelligence.

“Military intelligence trained, armed and moulded squads of Loyalists to put pressure on the IRA,” he says.

He also claims UVF members were ordered by military intelligence to carry out assassinations in order to sow terror among the Catholic population and undermine the Republican movement.

Black was convicted twice of terrorist offences, in the 1970s and in the early 1990s. He says he carried out some 50 UVF operations sanctioned by the army’s secret Force Research Unit (FRU). He became a “killer, bomber, arsonist and robber”, he says.

Black was a UVF member in the early 1970s when he was first approached. As well as being trained in firearms at army barracks and firing ranges around Northern Ireland – primarily at Palace Barracks near Holywood in County Down – Loyalists were given intelligence on potential targets and details about which targets to attack.

As many as 120 people could have been trained by military intelligence. At times they were given uniforms to provide cover while they were with their handlers. Black even drank with his handlers in the bars on military bases.

While the army-backed murder squads were active, military intelligence would impose an Out Of Bounds (OOB) order on the area in which the attack was about to take place. A OOB means an intelligence operation is under way – so police and army stay out of the area. This gave Loyalist murder gangs the freedom to operate with impunity.

Black says he was trained by the army in how to use a variety of handguns, machine guns and rifles, as well as in bomb making techniques. He claims his handlers gave the UVF consignments of guns and ammunition.

Loyalists were given classes on how to avoid leaving incriminating evidence at the scene of crimes and how to steal cars for use in assassination operations.

Black says he was told, “We don’t expect that active service units of the UVF will kill somebody every time they go out. The mere fact that an attempt has been made and shots fired – even if they wound or miss altogether – is all part of the terror tactics.” The policy was meant to “scare the shit” out of Catholics.

McGurk’s Bar

A bomb was planted in McGurk’s Bar – a predominantly Catholic bar on North Queen Street in Belfast – on 4 December 1971. It exploded, killing 15 men, women and children.

In the immediate aftermath of the McGurk’s Bar bombing, the army told the media that the bomb had belonged to the IRA. It had been inside the bar waiting to be transported when it exploded, they said.

This was a lie. Seven years later a UVF man received 15 life sentences for the bombing. For years, the families of the victims have been lobbying for the bombing to be reinvestigated. They argue it was the result of collusion between the UVF and the army.

Black says he was told about the planned bombing two weeks before the attack and was with his handler at the time it happened. He also claims he saw his handler take pot shots at Catholic teenagers on the streets of Belfast.

Pat Irvine, whose mother Kitty was killed in the McGurk’s bombing, told Socialist Worker, ‘‘It is clear that the attack took place in collusion with the state. We are concerned with ensuring that Black’s paymasters, and those who took the decisions at the highest levels of the establishment, are exposed for their role in collusion.

“The family of Kitty Irvine knows this for certain. No doubt, the source will be accused of fantasy or profiteering, as with any other whistleblower on the dirty war in the north east of Ireland.

“The British authorities will try to stymie any further investigation into their own government’s and army’s felonies. The government and military are guilty of war crimes against Irish men, women and children.”

Bloody Sunday

In the weeks leading up to Bloody Sunday in Derry, on 30 January 1972, in which the Parachute Regiment killed

14 people, Black claims he was informed by his handlers that the army had been ordered by the cabinet “to use whatever force and tactics necessary to put these troublemakers down”.

“The Bloody Sunday massacre was sanctioned by the government and top military chiefs,” he believes.

The day before Bloody Sunday, Black says he was taken for a training session at Palace Barracks, where he was given a pep talk by a major who praised him for “having the courage and loyalty to participate in covert actions against the common enemy”.

The major told Black, “We are hoping to provoke a confrontation with the IRA in Derry – and give them an example of what to expect in future attacks.”

Black was provided with a uniform, a gas mask, camouflage face paint and a rifle as cover for the time he would spend in Derry with his handler. Black says he watched from a military intelligence observation post as soldiers opened fire on civilians. He claims to have seen members of military intelligence shooting at – and hitting – unarmed civilians from the gun nest in the observation post.

New Lodge Six

In 1973, handlers organised and took part in a gun attack in Belfast that left six Catholic men dead. The killings took place within hours of each other on the night of 3 February and early hours of 4 February in the New Lodge area in the north of the city.

The army claimed all six were shot dead during a gun battle with the IRA. But no gun battle took place – and none of the six dead men was armed.

Locals and a number of the victims’ families have always alleged the killings took place as a result of collusion between paramilitaries and the army. Black claims he was one of a team of four gunmen led by an FRU member who opened fire in the New Lodge area that night.

Black said his handler phoned him on the day: ‘‘He rang and told me that something was planned for that night – and that our role in it was to create the impression that the New Lodge was under attack from Loyalists.

‘‘Later I listened with him to the military radio until a code came over it, which was the cue for us to start shooting. Me and two other UVF men were positioned in an entry close to Edlingham Street beside the New Lodge.

“The four of us fired shots for around 15 minutes, then we went to a different point at Edlingham Street where British soldiers were firing into the area.”

Black said that the attack was designed to draw the local IRA into a gun battle with the troops.

John Loughran, a spokesperson for the victims’ families, told Socialist Worker that he is hopeful that Black’s claims will help uncover the truth about what happened that night.

‘‘It is the families’ view that these killings were sanctioned at the highest political levels in Whitehall,” he says.

“Now that this has been acknowledged by someone involved in the murky underworld of British military intelligence, this must be considered as new evidence. This is the basis for a new investigation into the killings of six innocent men.”

Counter gangs

In 1971 British army brigadier Frank Kitson proposed establishing ‘‘counter gangs’’ to defeat the rapidly developing ‘‘insurgency’’ in the north of Ireland.

The philosophy was simple and brutal – terrorise Catholics through the use of Loyalist gangs that were controlled by the security forces, but whose activities could not be traced back to the British government.

From the late 1970s onwards, both Labour and Tory governments backed the Force Research Unit which supplied names, addresses and photographs of targets to paramilitaries. During this time the FRU worked alongside the Special Branch of Northern Ireland’s police force.

In the 1980s, the FRU was led by Colonel Gordon Kerr. He now heads British intelligence in Iraq.

The key person supplying the information was British army agent Brian Nelson. He infiltrated the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), a Loyalist paramilitary group. His information was responsible for the murder of at least 30 Catholics, including solicitor Pat Finucane.

Jack Grantham, a former FRU handler, described Nelson’s role “as an extension of the operational capability of the British army”.

“By that I mean refining their targeting, increasing their operational efficiency by re-arming them and using them to target known subversives which fitted the criteria and other type of person that the FRU wanted eliminating.”

In January this year the Northern Ireland police ombudsman’s report concluded that one UVF unit in the Mount Vernon area of north Belfast was run by Northern Ireland Special Branch. That unit carried out up to 16 murders.

Earlier this month the Department of Public Prosecutions said there would be no prosecution of police or soldiers over the death of Pat Finucane.

For more on the British army’s role in Northern Ireland go to » Pat Finucane murder: outrage at 'no prosecutions' announcement, » Exposing Gordon Kerr and Tony Blair’s secret army and » Britain’s chilling role in Northern Ireland death squads revealed

The following should be read alongside this article:

The British army’s campaign against Catholics in Northern Ireland

Socialist Worker 2063, 11 August 2007

www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=12688

t

Thanks for the link, although not completely news to me, it is a book I will get, nonetheless.

Moss

It sounds like a load of bullsheet. Why would the IDF do something like this on purpose? It sure isn't going to help them with PR or in any other way.

How about a link from a REPUTABLE source?

Bullets in the brain, UK's Daily Telegraph.

Typical text from the article above:

One of the medical team leaders at the hospital, Dr Ayman Abd al-Hadi, said that this was the worst conflict he had experienced. "We've had one child with two bullets in the head and nowhere else," he said. "We think that this shows something."

Your response is?

From the article itself:

The doctors in El-Arish cannot independently verify the accounts given by Gazan victims. But nothing they have seen discredits claims by civilians that they have been deliberately targeted.

Furthermore, if they are not actually removing the 'bullet' there at the hospital, how do they know it's not actually shrapnel? I'm not denying that some childern were shot in the head-considering the curiousity of childern and the one time chance snipers have to take out targets I'm sure mistakes were made when a child poked their head above cover and I'm sure that there's going to be some asshat (as in all militaries) who took the shot just because he/she could.

Also of concern; the IDF uses the M24 (7.62x51), SR-25 (7.62x51), and the M82 (12.7x99). ANY of those rounds will instantly cause a fatal head wound, with the M82 taking a head clean off the torso. It's possible that the soldiers that shot childern were using either the TAR-21 or a M16 variant (all use the 5.56x45), but even that is rated for 7.8 (26 gr) - 16.8 (55 gr) inches soft tissue. I've seen pictures of the 5.56 round after it hit someone's foot, turning the foot into cottage chese. The official specs have it fragmenting above some 800 m/s. The fact that 5.56 Ball retains 108 ft-lbs out to 1000 yards is indicative that if in fact it were a close range shot it would have either exited the cavity or caused damage such as pictured here.

Finally, Hamas is quite known for 'massaging' their numbers in regards to promoting their propoganda.

Another case from a pro-Israel web site. Same case covered on BBC's web site. I consider that case alone is a war crime - clearly targeting children.

Dude, the original link is for Hamas on Fatah violence....but anything to try and support your view that Israelis' are baby killing monsters hunh?

Tensions between Fatah and the Hamas government have frequently led to

gun battles in the streets of Gaza that have killed dozens of people. The attack came a day after gunmen shot at Interior Minister Saeed

Seyam's convoy in Gaza. Mr Seyam, who is a senior Hamas leader, was unharmed

in that incident.

More news sources on this theme within this Google Search.

Article relating to Arab/Hamas sentiment.

Oh, and since none of the Hamas defenders have yet been able to counter my arguments, with the exception that I only use information that supports my view (d'oh...it's not like I'm making shit up or ignoring both sides but fact is fact) and that Israel's response is not proportionate I propose that Israel has a proportionante response (if slightly immoral); for every Hamas rocket sent over the border Israel should respond in kind. Of course they'd have to be unguided rockets pointed in the general direction of Gaza city, but then again that's exactly what Hamas is doing.....how could you claim the response is not proportionate then?

And the droll about the civilians who had nowhere to go; they first didn't have to elect a terrorist organisation as their government. Also, did you not notice that they could have headed south? Gotten away from Gaza city? Not allowed Hamas to set up mortars in their neighbourhood?

As far as the claims of Israel building a wall on their borders; that is not collective punishment. Collective punishment is defined as carrying out criminal punishments on groups of people for the actions of a sub-set of those people.

Oh, and since none of the Hamas defenders have yet been able to counter my arguments, with the exception that I only use information that supports my view (d'oh...it's not like I'm making shit up or ignoring both sides but fact is fact) and that Israel's response is not proportionate I propose that Israel has a proportionante response (if slightly immoral); for every Hamas rocket sent over the border Israel should respond in kind. Of course they'd have to be unguided rockets pointed in the general direction of Gaza city, but then again that's exactly what Hamas is doing.....how could you claim the response is not proportionate then?

"Hamas defenders?" Where have there been any Hamas defenders posting in this thread?

I think that he is referring to the posters who cut and paste tons of wacked out, anti-Israeli propoganda from Hamas friendly web sites and never, ever, refer to Israel in other than negative ways. Not everyone is honest enough to admit their real agenda.

Hamas says Fatah taking revenge in West Bank

01-23) 04:00 PST Ramallah, West Bank -- Hundreds of Hamas supporters, including journalists, university students and Muslim leaders, have been beaten, arrested and tortured across the West Bank as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas takes revenge on Hamas for its crackdown on his Fatah supporters in Gaza, Hamas activists say.

The move has deepened growing divisions between Abbas' Fatah party and the Hamas movement that won parliamentary elections in Gaza before seizing total control of the territory in a 2007 bloody coup.

The reported West Bank sweep and its alarming consequences for Palestinian unity pose a sharp challenge to President Obama, who named former Sen. George Mitchell Thursday as his special envoy to the Middle East and pledged to aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Hamas has admitted arresting, executing and torturing Fatah "spies" it has accused of aiding Israel during the three-week invasion of Gaza. Hamas leaders also have branded Abbas as an Israeli collaborator.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/0...

Ah, so just out of curiosity's sake, does this apply to any and all critics of Israel's tactics or only those few? Because, it seems yet again to me, that there is either a with us or against us mentality here that I, for one, find very disturbing.

It does not necessarily follow that to criticize one group that one supports the other. Life is not about black and white but shades of gray and I find it disturbing that this kind of thinking pervades what could have been a civil discussion.

Ah, so just out of curiosity's sake, does this apply to any and all critics of Israel's tactics or only those few? Because, it seems yet again to me, that there is either a with us or against us mentality here that I, for one, find very disturbing.

It does not necessarily follow that to criticize one group that one supports the other. Life is not about black and white but shades of gray and I find it disturbing that this kind of thinking pervades what could have been a civil discussion.

I'm up for a fair dicourse. However, with the inflammatory remarks made that are aimed at simply provoking irrational debate and are lifted straight out of a terrorist group (regardless of their standing in the population) that is known for 'bending' the truth, I get a bit raw. On the other hand, I think it's wrong to also only point to Israeli news sources to back your arguments because they are, like all of us, biased.

I'm simply on the side of human decency that could be defined as normal. I.E., we have one nation that is attempting to protect their citizens. On the other hand we have a 'nation' that established in their charter the goal of eradicating the other nation. One nation responds to a barrage of rockets from the other 'nation'. Don't see much grey area in that.

I use 'nation' because I don't really know how to define Gaza. They hold elections and they're a soverign territory, so perhaps someone else in this thread could provide me with a correct word.

Ah, so just out of curiosity's sake, does this apply to any and all critics of Israel's tactics or only those few? Because, it seems yet again to me, that there is either a with us or against us mentality here that I, for one, find very disturbing.

It does not necessarily follow that to criticize one group that one supports the other. Life is not about black and white but shades of gray and I find it disturbing that this kind of thinking pervades what could have been a civil discussion.

From what I can see here, other than myself, most of the pro-Israeli group has been quite willing to find fault with some of Israel's tactics, but overall, they feel that Israel has been in the right much more often than the Palestinians and is really making an effort to kill as few civilians as possible despite Hamas using them as human shields and booby trapping places like UN schools to kill as many innocents as possible.

I don't bother to criticize Israel because I find that the Palestinian apologists go on and on about Israel, but don't bother to mention the crimes committed by the Palestinians. Even sbk does not say anything about anyone other than Israel's tactics when it has been documented that Hamas is purposely firing from areas with large numbers of civilians. Doesn't that seem rather unfair when someone is lecturing us about seeing both sides of an issue?

For the record, I find Hamas deplorable, and I do not fault the Israelis from taking action to defend their people and territory. Hamas has been able to portray themselves amongst some Palestinians as a humanitarian organization which is not corrupt, but I do not agree with that protrayal. 

I think Hamas was trying to sucker Israel into causing civilian casualties, and despite doing a pretty good job at selective targeting, Israel was playing right into Hamas' hands. With Israel's significant military superiority, they should have used other tactics when Hamas was using a school, for example, even if other tactics would have put Israeli soldiers at a greater risk. By doing so, they would have taken a PR weapon out of the hands of Hamas.

And as I have said, my major probelm with Israel is the inordinate power they have with US government officials. I don't actually blame Israel for that--I would probably do the same thing in the same position. But I do blame the US government officials who have let this happen.

I do have a degree of affection for the many Palestinians I have met who are simply trying to make a living and who, at least to me, have expressed a strong dislike for Hamas.

So thoughout my various posts, you can try and read whatever you like, but the above pretty succinctly states my positions.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/532.html

Chronology of suicide bombings against Israel

Here is a list of the 70 Palestinian suicide bombing attacks targeting Israelis since violence erupted in September 2000:

2000

• Oct. 26: Israeli outpost in Gaza; no Israelis killed.

• Dec. 22: Restaurant in Jordan River Valley; no Israelis killed.

2001

• Jan. 1: Netanya; no Israelis killed, 60 injured.

• March 1: One killed in taxi near Mei Ami.

• March 4: Three killed in Netanya.

• March 27: Jerusalem's French Hill neighborhood; no Israelis killed.

• March 28: Gas station near Sdeh Hemed; two killed.

• April 22: Kfar Saba; one killed.

• April 29: Car near Israeli bus outside Nablus; no Israelis killed.

• May 18: Netanya shopping mall; five killed.

• May 25: Truck at Carni Junction in Gaza Strip; no Israelis killed.

• June 1: Dolphinarium nightclub in Tel Aviv; 21 killed.

• June 22: Jeep at Dugit in Gaza Strip; two killed.

• July 9: Car near Kissufim Junction; no Israelis killed.

• July 16: Binyamina train station; two killed.

• Aug. 8: Military checkpoint in Jordan Valley; no Israelis killed.

• Aug. 9: Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem; 15 killed.

• Aug. 12: Kiryat Motzkin; no Israelis killed, 21 injured.

• Sept. 4: Haneviim Street in Jerusalem; no Israelis killed.

• Sept. 9: Nahariya train station; three killed.

• Sept. 9: Car at Beit Lid Junction; no Israelis killed.

• Oct. 7: Near Kibbutz Shluhot; one killed.

• Oct. 17: Nahal Oz; no Israelis killed.

• Nov. 8: Baka al-Sharkiyeh, West Bank; no Israelis killed.

• Nov. 26: Erez crossing, Gaza Strip; no Israelis killed.

• Nov. 29: Gan Shmuel bus; three killed.

• Dec. 1: Double suicide bombing on Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem; 11 killed.

• Dec. 2: Bus in Haifa; 15 killed.

• Dec. 5: King David Street in Jerusalem; no Israelis killed.

• Dec. 9: Haifa; no Israelis killed.

• Dec. 12: Gaza Strip; no Israelis killed.

2002

• Jan. 25: Tel Aviv; no Israelis killed.

• Jan. 27: Female bomber in Jaffa Street in Jerusalem; one killed.

• Jan. 30: Taibe; no Israelis killed.

• Feb. 8: Mei Ami; no Israelis killed.

• Feb. 16: Karnei Shomron, West Bank; two killed.

• Feb. 18: Maale Adumim; one killed.

• Feb. 19: Mehola; no Israelis killed.

• Feb. 22: Efrat supermarket in West Bank; no Israelis killed.

• Feb. 27: Female bomber near Maccabim checkpoint; no Israelis killed.

• March 2: Mea Shearim, Jerusalem; 10 killed.

• March 5: Bus in Afula; one killed.

• March 7: Ariel; no Israelis killed.

• March 8: Beit Hanina; no Israelis killed.

• March 9: Moment Cafe in Jerusalem; 11 killed.

• March 14: Car on a road east of Jerusalem; no Israelis killed.

• March 17: Bus in French Hill in Jerusalem; no Israelis killed.

• March 20: Bus in Kfar Musmus; seven killed.

• March 21: King George Street in Jerusalem; three killed.

• March 22: Roadblock near Jenin; no Israelis killed.

• March 26: Near Malha Mall in Jerusalem; no Israelis killed.

• March 27: Hotel in Netanya; 29 killed.

• March 29: Kiryat Yovel supermarket in Jerusalem; two killed.

• March 30: Coffee shop in Tel Aviv; one woman killed.

• March 31: Restaurant in Haifa; 15 killed.

• March 31: Ambulance station in Efrat, West Bank; no Israelis killed.

• April 1: Car in Jerusalem; one killed.

• April 10: Bus in Haifa; eight killed.

• April 12: Female bomber at the market in Jerusalem; six killed.

• April 19: Kissufim in Gaza Strip; no Israelis killed.

• April 20: Checkpoint near Qalqiliya in West Bank; no Israelis killed.

• May 7: Pool hall in Rishon Letzion; 15 killed.

• May 19: Market in Netanya; three killed.

• May 20: Taanakhim Junction; no Israelis killed.

• May 22: Park in Rishon Letzion; two killed.

• May 27: Ice-cream parlor in Petach Tikvah; two killed.

• June 5: Bus near Megiddo Junction; 17 killed.

• June 11: Restaurant in Herzliya; one killed.

• June 17: Marja; no Israelis killed.

• June 18: Patt Junction in Jerusalem; 19 killed.

• June 19: Jerusalem; seven killed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/06...ings-glance.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Copyright 2008 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Be interesting to see the data from 2005 to present.

If I recall (seeing as I don't feel like spending an hour researching it), 2005 was when Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza, including forcibly evicting it's own citizens.

From that point on, the Palestinians were responsible for most of their own affairs, elected the government(s) of their choosing, and were able (for the most part) to operate as an independent nation.

That is something they've claimed they have wanted all along. Yet what have they done in the 3 years since (besides elect a terrorist group to rule over them, and give them more grief and misery).

They could end this so easily if they just minded their own affairs and spent their time and effort on developing their nation, instead of continually attacking Israel.

I note too how it is that the criticism for the blockade is (primarily) aimed at Israel, and very little mention is made of the fact that Egypt is also blockading Gaza (to a lesser degree I imagine from the reports I'm reading about all the smuggling tunnels going to/from Egypt).

I'm also wondering why, with the Palestinians in control of the West Bank and Gaza, and running them as an independent nation, why all the Palestinians in all the refugee camps haven't been flocking to their "country" ? They've had pretty much 3 years to move to their "country", but I haven't seen or heard of any of the refugee camps closing down.

Are they worried that they will no longer get all the free aid and supplies that are funnelled into the refugee camps ? Concerned that they may have to start working for a living ?

Or are they staying in the vain hope that someone, somehow, will wipe out the Israelis and they can march in as conquerors and claim the spoils ?

Ah, so just out of curiosity's sake, does this apply to any and all critics of Israel's tactics or only those few? Because, it seems yet again to me, that there is either a with us or against us mentality here that I, for one, find very disturbing.

It does not necessarily follow that to criticize one group that one supports the other. Life is not about black and white but shades of gray and I find it disturbing that this kind of thinking pervades what could have been a civil discussion.

From what I can see here, other than myself, most of the pro-Israeli group has been quite willing to find fault with some of Israel's tactics, but overall, they feel that Israel has been in the right much more often than the Palestinians and is really making an effort to kill as few civilians as possible despite Hamas using them as human shields and booby trapping places like UN schools to kill as many innocents as possible.

I don't bother to criticize Israel because I find that the Palestinian apologists go on and on about Israel, but don't bother to mention the crimes committed by the Palestinians. Even sbk does not say anything about anyone other than Israel's tactics when it has been documented that Hamas is purposely firing from areas with large numbers of civilians. Doesn't that seem rather unfair when someone is lecturing us about seeing both sides of an issue?

See, here you go again, making assumptions about a poster's opinions based only on what appears to be your own bias. I was, in fact, responding directly to your post and daveboo's posts and not to any thoughts I might have about Israel or the Palestinians.

If you will read my posts you will see that I have, in fact, not posted anything one way or the other about any of it, but rather find your, and a few other posters, aggressive tone and attacking attitude to be, well, not conducive to a rational or reasonable discussion.

See, here you go again, making assumptions about a poster's opinions based only on what appears to be your own bias. I was, in fact, responding directly to your post and daveboo's posts and not to any thoughts I might have about Israel or the Palestinians.

If you will read my posts you will see that I have, in fact, not posted anything one way or the other about any of it, but rather find your, and a few other posters, aggressive tone and attacking attitude to be, well, not conducive to a rational or reasonable discussion.

Actually, I did not make any assumptions about your opinion. That is why I said, "even sbk". I simply pointed out that you only mentioned Israel's methods without one ill word about Hamas using human shields.

You are making assumptions about what you think that I really mean as I am quite aware that you have not commented on the situation. I do think that there is meaning to your mentioning Israel's tactics and ignoring those of Hamas, but I do not have enough information to venture a guess as to what it is.

If you will read my posts you will see that I have, in fact, not posted anything one way or the other about any of it, but rather find your, and a few other posters, aggressive tone and attacking attitude to be, well, not conducive to a rational or reasonable discussion.

As I have said before, I find many of the anti-Israeli posters to either be neo-Nazis or brain-dead, lefty-types who loathe Israel because it is very fashionable right now. You usually either get "kill all the Jews" posts like the one below or 100 pages of cut and paste nonsense with no other thought as is often provided by our very own z___. Such posts make me feel like aggressively attacking whoever wrote them, but I am stuck with not being very polite when I reply.

MeetJohnDoe Today, 2009-01-24 14:25:02 Post #5

Allot seem to visit Ko Samui/Tao areas. There is one of them Juden House thingys (like was blown up in Mumbai recently) in the Khao San Road area I believe. I keep waiting for the Muslims in Thailand to get their act together and do a "Mumbai" on it too.

From what I can see here, other than myself, most of the pro-Israeli group has been quite willing to find fault with some of Israel's tactics,

I honestly haven't misquoted here

As I have said before, I find many of the anti-Israeli posters to either be neo-Nazis or brain-dead, lefty-types

Food for Thought

Moss

'Ulysses G.' date='2009-01-24 19:20:32' post='2485993']

As I have said before, I find many of the anti-Israeli posters to either be neo-Nazis or brain-dead, lefty-types who loathe Israel because it is very fashionable right now. You usually either get "kill all the Jews" posts or 100 pages of cut and paste nonsense with no other thought

Did I forget to mention childish CARTOONS?

You have just made my point UG.

I have to tell you that you do your argument and your "side" no favors with your attacking, aggressive and insulting posts.

That is a laugh. I am responding to an "attacking, aggressive and insulting post", which you have completely ignored, because you agree with it. That seems to be the way it works, doesn't it?

Once again, it looks like you have made MY point!

No, it seems to me that you called people lets see, nazis and brain dead. Laughed and made fun of someone for their english skills. Shall I go on?

You know what UG. I give up. It is clear that you feel your position is the only defensible one and any person who argues with you is wrong.

But be aware of one thing. Get personal and nasty with any poster again and you will feel moderation in Bedlam. And that goes for all posters.

I hope that is clear.

See, here you go again, making assumptions about a poster's opinions based only on what appears to be your own bias. I was, in fact, responding directly to your post and daveboo's posts and not to any thoughts I might have about Israel or the Palestinians.

If you will read my posts you will see that I have, in fact, not posted anything one way or the other about any of it, but rather find your, and a few other posters, aggressive tone and attacking attitude to be, well, not conducive to a rational or reasonable discussion.

I don't know the repercussions for pointing this out, but bedlam, to my knowledge is defined as such:

chaos: a state of extreme confusion and disorder <LI>pejorative terms for an insane asylum

And considering the subforum is:

Outside The Box

Forum for thinking and discussing outside the box

I haven't seen anything that would be a major issue on any other web board's private forum. I've tried to be courteous and think I've done a good job, but at the same time I'm slightly bemused by the back and forth of the two camps.

Of course I could just not be understanding the point of a private forum that's named so......

Bedlam: the Rules, please read

The truth about Hamas.:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_OGhj43GAE

I have deleted several posts discussing moderation & given the offending poster a 7 day holiday to look over & remind himself of the rules. No poster is free from the rules of this forum and I will remind everyone that differing opinions are welcome but those who are unable to accept those differing opinions needing to resort to bullying, mocking, insulting, flaming & general bad manners will be subject to moderator action.

CLOSED