Home Politics & Debate

Mr Egeland on the conflict

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He strikes the right balance but it's funny how the media works isn't it?

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One thing I was wondering whilst watching the ITV news was how one sided and totally subjective the news coverage was...
    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...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought this was just mis-spelt and it was actually Mr. England on the Conflict, as if they'd been to a bodybuilding contest or something. You know like when they ask page 3 girls to comment on serious news issues so they're not just a pretty face? News in Briefs I think it's called.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought this was just mis-spelt and it was actually Mr. England on the Conflict, as if they'd been to a bodybuilding contest or something. You know like when they ask page 3 girls to comment on serious news issues so they're not just a pretty face? News in Briefs I think it's called.

    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.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    migpilot wrote:

    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?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    You know they can do the job... we use our Special Forces to recover hostages...

    So, explain the Terry Waite and John McCarthy stories to me then... :confused:
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    So, explain the Terry Waite and John McCarthy stories to me then... :confused:

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Ok, so it isn't a 100% rule

    It's more like a 1% rule TBH. The only time we've used them, that I can think of, is the Iranian Embassy.
    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?

    I'm not defending Israels actions, but I am trying to point out that there are no other simplistic choices either.
    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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    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?

    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.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    It's more like a 1% rule TBH. The only time we've used them, that I can think of, is the Iranian Embassy.

    Sierra Leone? Beslan? I could find more if I looked outside mass reported events, but those are two inloving the SAS and Spetsnaz.
    I'm not defending Israels actions, but I am trying to point out that there are no other simplistic choices either.

    There are NO simplistic choices where Hostages are involved. If only there were...
    Do you really think that this is just about the hostages?

    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.
    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.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:

    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!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Sierra Leone?

    Sorry, two occasions when UK forces were used.
    Beslan?

    A striking success, non? You might as well have mentioned the Moscow Theatre...
    There are NO simplistic choices where Hostages are involved. If only there were...

    I'm glad we agree. Yet we judge.
    They'd have sent Mossad in.

    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.
    War doesn't solve terrorism at all though.

    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.
    Israel is only making the problem worse here.

    And Hamas and Hezbollah didn't? They gave Israel an excuse...
    If they wanted peace, the least they could do is stop occupying land illegaly.

    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.
    except for the few hard-line extremists like the Mullah in Iran. You will always get these people... nothing can be done about it.

    When those hard liners in Iran (and Israel) have power over the military then the "nothing" you talk about is actually quite alot.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Sorry, two occasions when UK forces were used.

    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.)
    A striking success, non? You might as well have mentioned the Moscow Theatre...

    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.
    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.

    And ... ? Take the head off the beast...
    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.

    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...
    And Hamas and Hezbollah didn't? They gave Israel an excuse...

    There isn't too much of an excuse for this war they have started. It is milking it just a tad.
    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.

    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...
    When those hard liners in Iran (and Israel) have power over the military then the "nothing" you talk about is actually quite alot.

    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".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    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...

    :lol: You're very gullible.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I will admit that Hamas et al instigate most of the violence. I don't however blame them for doing so and I don't like how Israel react to it most of the time.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Sorry, do you want me to find every single one?

    Yeah, go on. I'd be interested and shocked if you could find five.
    The Children that died were dead BEFORE the Spetsnaz went in.

    The explosives went off after shots were fired.
    Moscow Theatre... well, that was a mild cock-up. But the plan was sound. If only they knew WHAT they were using.

    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.
    And ... ? Take the head off the beast...

    My point was, if it was easy then that is what they would have done. It isn't.
    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...

    :lol:

    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.
    No... the land isn't a benefit - you could build a fuck-off wall along your OWN border, not it someones elses land.

    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 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...

    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?
    No. It's like the Cold War. Neither side will act because the repercussions are too great if they do.

    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.
    BUT if Israel Airstrikes Palestine or Lebanon, it gets a few Katyusha Rockets back. "Oooh".

    ... and the world's focus is taken away from the development of those nukes you talk about.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually Hamas had observed a unilateral ceasefire for the best part of a year. The finally ended it after continuous Israeli attacks showed the Israelis didn't seem very interested in ceasefires or peace- the last straw being the shelling of innocent people on the beach.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Actually Hamas had observed a unilateral ceasefire for the best part of a year. The finally ended it after continuous Israeli attacks showed the Israelis didn't seem very interested in ceasefires or peace- the last straw being the shelling of innocent people on the beach.

    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).
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Yeah, go on. I'd be interested and shocked if you could find five.

    They have helped to regain lots of Hostages during times of war. People forget this.
    The explosives went off after shots were fired.

    And the children appear to have died before that, explosives or not.
    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.

    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.
    My point was, if it was easy then that is what they would have done. It isn't.

    Well, obviously it isn't. But it does weaken them.
    :lol:

    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.

    No, so far, Israel has continously broken them. FACT. The terrorists didn't, Israel did.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    ... and the world's focus is taken away from the development of those nukes you talk about.

    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As far as Beslan, the explosion happened first, one of the bombs on one of the basketball boards was loosely attached and fell on the floor causing the explosion.
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The beach blast incident wasn't entirely clear-cut...
    The only thing not clear cut is from which Israeli vessel, craft, or artillery unit the shell came from, or whether it was some soldiers being bored and deciding to blow up some dirty Arabs for a laugh or an appallingly bad shot aimed elsewhere.
    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.
    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.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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:

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.