If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Mr Egeland on the conflict
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
When other news organisations reported Mr Egeland's comments (certainly the ones not owned by Rupert Murdoch) the headlines and emphasis were on "Israel having commited crimes against humanitarian law" and how Mr Egeland "was appalled" by the level of destruction inflicted on innocent civilans by the Israelis.
I notice his comments in that respect have been 'mysteriously' reduced to a couple of sentences in the Sky News piece. No doubt lack of space is to be blamed for that.
The Media is supposed to be impartial and their job is to report, not judge...hmm
Anyway, they even put an IDF Captain on and tried to wind him up to make him look like a cunt.
Is there an independent news agency?
Goes to try Reuters...
I can`t help wondering what anyone on this forum knows about this conflict.I find it helps me to stick to the evident facts,namely two groups of delusional individuals trying(and succeeding to various degrees) to murder each other.
As Alladin said.
I wouldn't say "spot on" though - but very close to the mark.
For starters... I wouldn't say Hezbollah caused thier deaths - an ISraeli invasion was hardly necessary. Use fucking Mossad again you twats. You know they can do the job... we use our Special Forces to recover hostages... so does the US, so does Russia...
WHY not Israel?
So, explain the Terry Waite and John McCarthy stories to me then...
Ok, so it isn't a 100% rule. But are you denying we use the SAS to retrieve hostages at all? Sometimes we haven't. But many, many, times we have.
And you wanted an explanation - they were taken hostage and eventually released by thier captors. Albiet after a long, long, time for Mr.McCarthy.
And do you think the invasion is a better and more effective way of regaining captured hostages than silently and steathily sending in a team of highly trained special forces opperatives - that the captors will not expect?
Surley they will be fully aware the armed forces are coming - and move and hides the hostages? Also - they could say to Israel they won't be released until they withdraw - or indeed, they will kill them if they won't withdraw?
It makes little sense to me to invade a country and slaughter its civilians just because of a few hostages. Which can be retrieved better by other means.
It's more like a 1% rule TBH. The only time we've used them, that I can think of, is the Iranian Embassy.
I'm not defending Israels actions, but I am trying to point out that there are no other simplistic choices either.
Do you really think that this is just about the hostages?
There's more to it than that and it's been coming for years as the Hezbollah strength has grown just inside the Lebanese border and the fact that their own Govt are unable to act (partly because Hezbollah are part of the Govt) whilst Syria and Iran have continued to fund and support them.
Interesting how people refer to the "war" which has been started by Israel but few comment on the fact that state sposnored terrorism is also an act of war, one which Syria and Iran have been guilty of for several decades.
Because:
1. They don't know where they are being held
2. It's not Israels primary objective
3. As long as the soldiers are hostages, it gives Israel (in their eyes) to carry on with the invasion
Also, I disagree about Hezbollah. It's a known guerilla tactic to hide amongst civilians and use them as a human shield. That fact is partly responsible for the number of civilian deaths.
Sierra Leone? Beslan? I could find more if I looked outside mass reported events, but those are two inloving the SAS and Spetsnaz.
There are NO simplistic choices where Hostages are involved. If only there were...
I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with the Hostages, if they valued thier lives they WOULDN'T invade, that just gives Hezbollah reason to kill them. They'd have sent Mossad in.
Sigh. War doesn't solve terrorism at all though. Infact, it helps it grow. Terrorism gains strongest support for thier extreme views and promises of stability - odly enough - during times of turmoil. Note how such times are the times that revolution seems to occur?
As such, terrorists promise all sorsts - wether it is based on Marxist, Facist, or Religious principles, they promise to have the solution. War provides the ultime in turmoil - no-one knows how long they will live and all order seems to cease to exist.
Israel is only making the problem worse here. Typical. I don't think they want peace in the Mid-East at all - unless it is thier ultimate power over the whole area because they occupy it. It has nothing to do with Hostages or Terrorism. If they wanted peace, the least they could do is stop occupying land illegaly.
Neither side is justified in its action - both sides of a war are nearly always in the wrong one way or the other - I can't think of a time they were not! But one side is usually far worse than the other. Israel is that side in this situation - with or without US backing. The US and UK approving thier actinos doesn't "make" it right because we are big world players - Mao's revolution wasn't "OK" because Stalin agreed. The Facists guerillas in Columbia aren't "OK" because the US helps them.
Israel will hopefully get a good leadership oneday. And all this terrorism will decrease - except for the few hard-line extremists like the Mullah in Iran. You will always get these people... nothing can be done about it.
One problem with this.
There will never be peace in the middle east!
Sorry, two occasions when UK forces were used.
A striking success, non? You might as well have mentioned the Moscow Theatre...
I'm glad we agree. Yet we judge.
having just said "no simplistic choices, you offer one.
Mossad aren't the be all and end all either. If they were then there wouldn't be any leaders of Hamas/Hezbollah etc.
Of course it doesn't. Negotiation does. But then for that to happen you need both sides to want it. At the moement neither seems to.
And Hamas and Hezbollah didn't? They gave Israel an excuse...
If you are going to defeat someone diplomatically then you have to remove some of their motivation, or at least find a way around it.
Ask yourself why Israel has felt it necessary to maintain that barrier between themselves and their neighbours. And it's not just the obvious land grab, that is a side benefit.
When those hard liners in Iran (and Israel) have power over the military then the "nothing" you talk about is actually quite alot.
Sorry, do you want me to find every single one? I don't have that much time (actually its a lie. I just can't be bothered.)
Yes, actually, it was. The Children that died were dead BEFORE the Spetsnaz went in. Them going in saved the lives of the rest. How is this not a sucess... ? Moscow Theatre... well, that was a mild cock-up. But the plan was sound. If only they knew WHAT they were using.
And ... ? Take the head off the beast...
Well Hamas and Hezbollah have both agreed to ceasfires. Israel has broken the vast majority of them. Seems to me one side doesn't want any peace... and it is obvious which. The one that sends tanks in...
There isn't too much of an excuse for this war they have started. It is milking it just a tad.
No... the land isn't a benefit - you could build a fuck-off wall along your OWN border, not it someones elses land. Say I didn't like my neighbours, and they really pissed me off and threw beer cans into my garden. So I erect a huge fence... halfway into thier garden. I have stolen half thier garden. I could have put the "security" fence at the edge of both gardens...
No. It's like the Cold War. Neither side will act because the repercussions are too great if they do.
If Iran nukes Israel, Iran gets nuked by Israel. If Iran Air Strikes Israel, Iran gets Airstriked back.
BUT if Israel Airstrikes Palestine or Lebanon, it gets a few Katyusha Rockets back. "Oooh".
You're very gullible.
Yeah, go on. I'd be interested and shocked if you could find five.
The explosives went off after shots were fired.
Mild? Understatement of the week, more than quote of the week that one.
They knew what they were using, they just didn't know the dose. End result, people died.
My point was, if it was easy then that is what they would have done. It isn't.
And I get called delusional... (actually I don't, I get called an apologist), but ceasefires only work if both are committed to maintain them, so far neither has in many instances.
If you are going to judge, then it's a good idea to understand military doctrine and the belief in not giving up your own land.
Say your neighbour invaded your garden on the day you bought your house. THen did it again soon after you'd kicked their ass once...
We could go on like this for ages.
Point is, would you rather that their first step was into your garden, or their own?
What???
What the hell is going on right now then? He who pays the piper calls the tune, looks to me like both the US and Iran are calling in their "favours" right now.
... and the world's focus is taken away from the development of those nukes you talk about.
The beach blast incident wasn't entirely clear-cut...
Funny but during this so called ceasefire lasting the 'best part of the year' there were suicide bomb attacks, dozens of missile attacks and scores of attacks on Israeli troops. And with Hamas and Islamic Jihad in collusion a ceasefire of the former is meaningless while the latter is still killing...(Not to mention Hamas's friends in Hezbollah who had been provoking Israel long before the latest escalation along the border..) But if Hamas say they're observing a ceasefire that must automatically be the case...:rolleyes: Wonder why they're still brainwashing children to burn Israel if nice and peaceful Hamas were observing a ceasefire...I'm also a tad surprised that you treat the words of Islamofascists like Hamas with so much credibility, I'm sure you would not show the same level of trust to their Western counterparts in the BNP and NF. (NF and Hamas sharing barbaric and backward views towards gays, women, Jews and a penchant for totalitarianism).
They have helped to regain lots of Hostages during times of war. People forget this.
And the children appear to have died before that, explosives or not.
Mild... not as many people died as if they didn't use the gas. And, according to the report, they didn't know what it was. And as such, were not able to tell the doctors, which meant, people died.
Well, obviously it isn't. But it does weaken them.
No, so far, Israel has continously broken them. FACT. The terrorists didn't, Israel did.
They wouldn't be giving up thier land. They'd be giving up SOMEONE ELSES land which they shouldn't have in the first place.
Has anyone done anything directly to Iran? No. Has Iran done anything directly to anyone? No.
Seems a bit like the cold war to me... lots of side battles (Vietnam, Korea/Iran, Afghanistan) ... but the main sides aren't directly involved.
Indeed. And they won't be used, just like the US and Soviet nukes. And once again, the US will have a scapegoat for everything wrong with the world. Islam.
At the same time the mabulance was waiting outside to pick up the dead as agreed with the hostage takers. Some family members were with the ambulance people to help out and they were armed.
At that time the explosion occured in the gym.
Then the armed people started shooting at the hostage takers to which they replied with gun fire.
All hell then broke loose.
The special forces hand was forced and they had to go in at that time.
So yes, some children were dead before the special forces made their move.
And the shooting came after the explosion.
Not by Hamas.
Israel didn't make any efforts whatsoever to try to seek peace when Hamas gained power. Hamas has said in several occasions now it would be prepared to recognise the State of Israel and to reach a permanent peace agreements if the Israelis were to agree on principle to withdraw in full from occupied Palestine.
But Israel doesn't want to withdraw from the land it illegally occupies. And so it continued to target Hamas, to impose sanctions and to refuse to even talk to it.
Peace is obviously secondary to territorial ambitions.
Hold on, do you really think that Hamas can actually make sure that at all times one of it's renegade members doesn't plan an attack on Israel? In that "best part of the year" there were fuck all attacks, and I bet none were sanctioned by the highest echelions of Hamas.