Gaza Aid Convoy

[darkeyes]

bugger the virgins, too unexperienced and I am too old to teach them anything...... now if there was a open bar tab that never needs paying..... mmmmmmmm

Been a wile since me wos a virgin Duckie.. but didn haff enjoy bein tot..well most a bein tot.. sum wos a bit grim an even that tot me a lot an all.. but as me grew up an got more experienced..didn haff enjoy teachin...:bigrin:

[DuckiesDarling]

Oh he's not bad at teaching some things, Fran, but then I taught him a thing or two myself :)

[Long Duck Dong]

Been a wile since me wos a virgin Duckie.. but didn haff enjoy bein tot..well most a bein tot.. sum wos a bit grim an even that tot me a lot an all.. but as me grew up an got more experienced..didn haff enjoy teachin...:bigrin:

puts fingers in ears ... la la la la fran is a virgin..la la la la fran is innocent..... la la la la fran is well behaved la la la la la la....... :tong:

[oralplus]

Have the world fogoten that it was the jews that INVADED PALESTINE???? and since then their territory ( ISRAEL) is been growing all the time by taking more and more land from the Palestinians.
There are many Jews groups world wide that are agains the behaver and greed of the Israelites.
No i am not Arab or follow eny religion of any type, just sick of any group claim land or anything else in the name of some GOD.
It was said long time a go that religion is the "opium of the people".
To much one side reporting by interested groups.
Churchil said. We are making a big mistake sending the Jews to Palestine, it only will good for the arms and wepons manufacturers.

[darkeyes]

Have the world fogoten that it was the jews that INVADED PALESTINE???? and since then their territory ( ISRAEL) is been growing all the time by taking more and more land from the Palestinians.
There are many Jews groups world wide that are agains the behaver and greed of the Israelites.
No i am not Arab or follow eny religion of any type, just sick of any group claim land or anything else in the name of some GOD.
It was said long time a go that religion is the "opium of the people".
To much one side reporting by interested groups.
Churchil said. We are making a big mistake sending the Jews to Palestine, it only will good for the arms and wepons manufacturers.
There is something in what you say, sweetheart, but alas what is done is done when we consider in the influx of Jews in the first half of the 20th century, and into Israel since 1948. That that influx and the creation of Israel has been a destabilising influence is unarguable. But it is in reality pointless looking back and both Israeli and Palestiinian must look forward. The whole argument in these pages is about the intransigence of both sides to do that and in particular, in my opinion, that the reluctance of the most powerful and well equipped and most well equipped to truly be committed to finding a solution.

That God keeps cropping up in the entire argument makes it doubly difficult to reach a solution because faith in a God often brings out the worst in us. This can be seen throughout history, and in my view Christianity has been the worst offender.. not Christianity itself but those who run it and have stalked the globe in its name. Islam, historically a much more tolerant religion even although every bit is expansionist as Christianity, has in the last century and in particular since the fall of the Shah in Iran began to articulate itself in a much more odious and radical way, with its more progressive and tolerant sects increasingly being sidelined and defensive. We can argue why this is, and the frustration of millions in the middle east in general and the Palestinians in particular has much to do with that movement. Isarel's intransigence and the west's actions in the region also play their part in making a large part of Islam much less tolerant.. yet like the odious nature of those who ran Christianity, now we have people running much of Islam and performing many things in its name who are every bit as odious as those historical Christians.

Islam, like Christianity is an extremely tolerant religion.. unfortunately many of those who act in its name use it for their own ends.. even more unfortunately, in both Christianity and Islam, the more unpleasant are in the ascendancy.. many do not even believe in a God.

The quotation was that of Karl Marx, but he was not the first to use such a claim.. The Marquis de Sade, no lover of priests and religion, used something very similar half a century earlier in his novel "'L'Histoire de Juliette".


"Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Karl Marx 'Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right' (1843)"

[Canticle]

''the vid you watched but is not a video according to you''

I was referring to the links I posted. Perhaps you need to read things properly.

''the bloody video is in english, plus text, the person spoke in english....and clearly said they wanted to be a martyr twice''

I watched that video. I heard the man say the word martyr. It depends in what context he meant the word martyr to mean.

''step one, turn the sound on your computer....''

The sound is always turned up on my computer...thank you for trying to treat me like a fool....I am not one.

''step two, turn brain on''

My brain is very turned on. it's a very good brain and understands many things it comes across.

''step three, stop ranting''

I don't rant. I express myself, my way. Got it!

''step four, watch the non existent video that you claim is propaganda, not a video and only text''

I think that you are the one getting confused, here.

''step 5 explain how you watched a video, listened to a video, argued the meaning of the words in the video.... yet now claim there is no video only text......''

Refer back to where I said that it was the links which I posted that were text only. You are twisting my words.

''DD, myself and tenni and you and I believe a few others all read the text, heard the remarks by the person and understood it was said in english, it had subtitles in english and its a bloody video''

Yes, I saw that video too. isn't that funny!!!

''I posted the link to the video, you viewed the video, you argued the meanings of jihad and martyr with me, and now you say there was no video ????? only text ????..''

I have said no such thing......AGAIN.....I said my links were text only.

''as for you and adam and your history ??? don't care, not interested, nothing to do with me, can not give a shit, do not want to hear about it, never mentioned your relationship with adam, have no interest in your personal life etc etc.... take your pick....''

Then why the hell did you mention a certain person and say that this person had been vindicated and was truthful? Was it a mistake?????

''I made one statement about adam, nothing about you or your personal life..... you are the one with the issue over that statement and you need to get over it..... your relationship and personal life is none of my business and nor do I want to know about it at all.......''

You made a statement about a particular person, knowing that I had been asscociated with that person. You made the post a personal one, when there was no need. You cannot deny that. Why even mention that person?

''now there is a reason why israel will stick to their story about shooting 9 protestors..... and that reason would be cos they shot nine protestors..... they are not denying it at all..... they have never denied it..... what israel has said, is consistent with the videos they released and what protestors have said...
the israelis boarded the ship, were attacked and they opened fired on the protestors.......''

Known

''now some force was over the top.... yes.... including throwing a person over the side of the deck of a boat, a action that could kill a person..... done by the protestors... that would be a active act of intentional and hostile resistance.....and in neutral country, a act of attempted murder.... add to the fact that the protestors were waiting for the israelis to board the boat ( the protestors own videos ).. you have a case for premeditated intent......''.

So once again you are stating that you support the IDF

''the overwhelming odds were in the favour of the protestors.... 700 to 45..... how many of the protestors were not offering resistance, may never been known..... by anybody......''

I disagree...not when the IDF is armed....and dangerous.

''but again, the israelis have not denied anything, videos from both sides support israels side of things and prove that the aid mission was not just a aid mission, as aid workers and missionaries are generally pacifists, they are there to aid and assist people, not try and kill people......''

Well...if you believe that....you'll believe anything....including a warped idea that to make your post to me, personal, was OK.

[Canticle]

''you quoted what I had said
''as for the jihad / martyr issue.... again, it was between DD and tenni.... I am not going to decide what a person said in a video, according to dictionary definitions...... the person that said it in the video, knows what they mean, we do not....... I know the different definations of jihad and martyr.... but I do not know in what context the person in the video, was using them
as raddick said in the chronicles of riddick " not my fight *.....'' ''

I am not even going to try to decipher this, because you can be so obscure at times and mix things up in your posts.

''and then you said
There was no video...it was text and if you don't read the links other people post...what is the point of this whole exercise?''

My links had no video...it was text only.....MY LINKs......sheesh!!

''now before you say that you were talking about the link you posted...... ( which would then clearly show that not only did you ignore what I was clearly talking about.... but that you replied and referred to something that I clearly was not talking about..... which means
A) your ability to read and comprehend things is seriously in need of work
B) your ability to convey your stance in a clear and concise form, is in need of work
C) you are out of your depth when it comes to understanding what people are and are not saying..... as you are constantly adding in your own spin and walls of text to things that people are not saying or talking about''

This is not only insulting my intellect, which I can assure you is quite high, it is a load of rubbish and you are also flaming me. It is not even accurate.

''I will remind you again, dictionaries give definations of words, NOT context of what a person is saying......''

Not so.

''I was not debating the context or meaning of the words as the guy said them, as there is no way to be sure what he was refering to, beyond personal opinion..... and the moment you imply he is saying something other than what he meant.... you are making propaganda statements as you are putting your own interpretation on their words......''

Once again, you are twisting words and deciding for me, what I may mean. I call this flaming.....but you won't....of course you won't.

In all truth...this post of yours did not even deserve a reply.

[Canticle]

now canticle..... humour me......

using your posted links about jihad and martyr
If I am to use the defination ( according to your links ) for martyr ( martyr refering to the greek word for a witness in a court case
canticles defination of martyr (http://web.mit.edu/cms/reconstructions/definitions/martyr.html)

the gentleman sitting in the chair at 32-40 seconds into the video, is talking about being a martyr
he is sitting there saying I wanted to be a witness in a court case, I was not so lucky, now god willing, I will be a witness in a court case

ahhh yes..... people that were martyrs in the name of their cause.... are not witnesses in a court case.... they are dead.....

so we have 9 witnesses in a court case / martyrs.....

according to the definitions you posted..... jihad means struggle, in one of 3 areas,
a visible enemy
ones own failings
spiritual confusion

yet I failed to see the guy refer to a struggle to be a witness in a court case ( a jihad to be a martyr )

no... he was clearly referring to his desire to be a witness in a court case......

now.... please show me, how that statement fits him being on a aid ship going to the gaza strip....... cos it makes no bloody sense to me....


but if I research the word martyr.... I get something else

mar·tyr
(märtr) [Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Late Greek martur, from Greek martus, martur-, witness.]
n.
1. One who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.
2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.
3.
a. One who endures great suffering: a martyr to arthritis.
b. One who makes a great show of suffering in order to arouse sympathy.
tr.v. mar·tyred, mar·tyr·ing, mar·tyrs
1. To make a martyr of, especially to put to death for devotion to religious beliefs.
2. To inflict great pain on; torment.

martyr [ˈmɑːtə]
n
1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a person who suffers death rather than renounce his religious beliefs
2. a person who suffers greatly or dies for a cause, belief, etc.
3. a person who suffers from poor health, misfortune, etc. he's a martyr to rheumatism
4. Facetious or derogatory a person who feigns suffering to gain sympathy, help, etc.
vb also 'martyr"ize, 'martyr"ise (tr)
1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) to kill as a martyr
2. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) to make a martyr of
[Old English martir, from Church Latin martyr, from Late Greek martur-, martus witness]
martyrization , martyrisation n


now if we apply 2. One who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause, or principle.

the guy is saying, I want to suffer or make a sacrifice ( of what, is debatable ) for my cause / belief / principle...

that makes a dammed sight more sense if you compare that sentence, to what happened on the ship.......


I said it before..you waffle and you also mix things up and twist things so that they seem different. you may not do it deliberately, but do it, you do.....and this really does make youe posts...to me...totally pointless....from the reading aspect. You also turned your ''attack'' on me into something personal. You had no need to mention a certain person....yet you did...and then went on to say you were not interested in my association with that person. So why mention that person and say that the person was truth ful and had been vindicated. to come to that conclusion, you must have been reading.....or have a photographic memory and remember all that has ever been written. The only thing is your understanding and interpretation, are way out....way, way out. You don't understand what you are commenting upon, in that area.

[Canticle]

canticle, I address your points, your links.... without a life history........ point out the areas, you need to address to clear up your stance..... so you call it waffle and put me on ignore ????

I take it to mean that no, you will not clear up the confusion over your own opinion ......... and yes, you will run away ....

btw a simple no and yes will suffice.....

I do not run away...as you can plainly see.

You tried to flame me.

[Long Duck Dong]

right I asked you what the hell you were referring to with your links and the stuff about jihad and martyr.... as I pointed out time and time again, it was between DD and tenni....

I finally gave up asking you for a explanation and addressed what you were saying with your links.....as it made no sense.....

as I have pointed out, the guy in the vid referred to wanting to be a martyr, he never said how.... so its a neutral term.... he was not indicating that he was one of the people that attacked the soldiers, he was not saying that he was involved with them...... for all intentions and purposes he may have been saying that he will be a martyr for the aid cause and break any blockade to get the aid thru.....WE DO NOT KNOW.... hence I said it was a neutral statement and I was not reading anything into it....

you did, and told us, we were misunderstanding his meaning.....

again, the guy made a ambiguous statement without context...... and I never read anything to it.... nor did I ever read anything into it....so I could have not misunderstood what he was saying

as for adam.... all I said was
adamlkadmon was vindicated....

you have implied that I have questioned his intelligent, said he is truthful etc and made a big great drama about your personal life and how I know nothing about your personal life etc etc

now who is twisting whose words, canticle.....

thats the second example of you reading your own meaning into something and turning it into propaganda.....

I warned you about using my posts for your long winded rants.....

there is a old saying, many people will say many things and profess wisdom.... yet it is truely the wise man that does not profess wisdom.... in truth he says nothing at all

[Canticle]

DD.....I do believe in Christ...Christ the man and his teachings.......not the faerie stories, the mistranslation and the deliberately altered text. Many of the words of Jesus, as related in the New Testament, are even arranged, out of sequence, therefore giving them a totally different meaning.

The Convention at Nicea chose the four ''safe'' Gospels (the three Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of St John), and hoped that they could hush up any other gospels...the Gnostic Gospels. If every single work was known to everyone and was common knowledge and if the early Church had not tried to stifle and stop these Gospels from being read....if they had been part of Christian teaching.....Christianity today, would be a very different religion and far more in tune with so many other spiritual teachings,

Never say I do not believe in Jesus....for I do. I believe in his teachings and I believe in a Son of Man......not a Son of God. There have been many who could be called Son of Man, in one way or another, but there was something very different, as far as I am concerned, about this Jew who wanted to see renewal, inclusion and an all encompassing Judaism.

Christ meaned anointed....it wasn't his name.

My belief is personal to me and just as I respect your Pagan belief (though I believe it is wrong to call any belief Pagan), and I respect Fran's Atheism, I would ask you to respect my beliefs. Our personal belief, is sacred to us, as individuals and we should all respect one another, in that aspect. That is the beauty of Spiritualism. We believe in respecting another's personal faith and belief.

Fran

I am most sorry, that this has occurred, but I did not begin it. I hope that I have remained as polite as possible. Certainly, I was not the one to make the posting, take on a rather unsavoury, personal twist and with no explanation forthcoming.

With that, I will bow out. Perhaps the whole thread, needs to do the same thing. However, thank you for raising the subject.

[Canticle]

right I asked you what the hell you were referring to with your links and the stuff about jihad and martyr.... as I pointed out time and time again, it was between DD and tenni....

I finally gave up asking you for a explanation and addressed what you were saying with your links.....as it made no sense.....

as I have pointed out, the guy in the vid referred to wanting to be a martyr, he never said how.... so its a neutral term.... he was not indicating that he was one of the people that attacked the soldiers, he was not saying that he was involved with them...... for all intentions and purposes he may have been saying that he will be a martyr for the aid cause and break any blockade to get the aid thru.....WE DO NOT KNOW.... hence I said it was a neutral statement and I was not reading anything into it....

you did, and told us, we were misunderstanding his meaning.....

again, the guy made a ambiguous statement without context...... and I never read anything to it.... nor did I ever read anything into it....so I could have not misunderstood what he was saying

as for adam.... all I said was
adamlkadmon was vindicated....

you have implied that I have questioned his intelligent, said he is truthful etc and made a big great drama about your personal life and how I know nothing about your personal life etc etc

now who is twisting whose words, canticle.....

thats the second example of you reading your own meaning into something and turning it into propaganda.....

I warned you about using my posts for your long winded rants.....

there is a old saying, many people will say many things and profess wisdom.... yet it is truely the wise man that does not profess wisdom.... in truth he says nothing at all

''as for adam.... all I said was
adamlkadmon was vindicated....

you have implied that I have questioned his intelligent, said he is truthful etc and made a big great drama about your personal life and how I know nothing about your personal life etc etc

now who is twisting whose words, canticle.....

thats the second example of you reading your own meaning into something and turning it into propaganda.....

I warned you about using my posts for your long winded rants.....

there is a old saying, many people will say many things and profess wisdom.... yet it is truely the wise man that does not profess wisdom.... in truth he says nothing at all''

I don't rant. I am not long winded and I do not misread anything. You made a statement which implied, that you had a great knowledge of something, which you have no realistic knowledge of and cannot be expected to have.

You made the statement and you will not explain, what you meant by it.

I do not remember you warning me off anything at all and who are you to tell people such a thing, anyway. I have this funny feeling that you are the one who thinks yourself wise. Me....I just express my opinion and this is a forum, not a court of law, or a government debating it's policy in a political house. You become so very serious (apart from the frequent lapses into frivolity), and you demand that someone supply proof to support their opinion. An opinion of what they have viewed and read. You turn the thread from what could be an interesting one, with the observations and views of individuals, posted, into personal attacks.

I believe that you should feel shame and remorse and if I raised a certain item, in my reply to you, when you made a statement (which you refuse to explain), about a certain person, then it was for a good reason and my right to do so.

Don't warn people about answering your posts in a certain manner. It doesn't wash and it is not clever.

By the way, if you know nothing about my person life and have no interest in it, what was the point of making the statement that a certain person had been vindicated and was proven truthful. Explain that!!

And I think it is you, who are not understanding me....and I do write in plain English. Not too hard to understand.

[Long Duck Dong]

my statement was one sentence, thats it.... nothing more.....
and once again, I never said he was truthful.... you said I said that....

once again, you have proven you misread things....

yes I asked you a few times to stop multi quoting everything I say... as I already know what I have said in my posts..... but multiquoting is how other people get their facts wrong.... as you have proven

now once again.... I do not give a rats ass about you and adam..... its NONE of my business and nor am I interested in the bisexual.com version of *coronation street *

so will you please stop trying to drag me into your drama / personal life....... whatever you call it....... if that type of rubbish interested me, I would watch american daytime dramas.....

[hardnbubbly]

Well said :)

Reality on the ground dictates that we take good care of the people living on the land today with all the facts on the ground. It means Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Arabs or whoever it is that is there.


There is something in what you say, sweetheart, but alas what is done is done when we consider in the influx of Jews in the first half of the 20th century, and into Israel since 1948. That that influx and the creation of Israel has been a destabilising influence is unarguable. But it is in reality pointless looking back and both Israeli and Palestiinian must look forward. The whole argument in these pages is about the intransigence of both sides to do that and in particular, in my opinion, that the reluctance of the most powerful and well equipped and most well equipped to truly be committed to finding a solution.

That God keeps cropping up in the entire argument makes it doubly difficult to reach a solution because faith in a God often brings out the worst in us. This can be seen throughout history, and in my view Christianity has been the worst offender.. not Christianity itself but those who run it and have stalked the globe in its name. Islam, historically a much more tolerant religion even although every bit is expansionist as Christianity, has in the last century and in particular since the fall of the Shah in Iran began to articulate itself in a much more odious and radical way, with its more progressive and tolerant sects increasingly being sidelined and defensive. We can argue why this is, and the frustration of millions in the middle east in general and the Palestinians in particular has much to do with that movement. Isarel's intransigence and the west's actions in the region also play their part in making a large part of Islam much less tolerant.. yet like the odious nature of those who ran Christianity, now we have people running much of Islam and performing many things in its name who are every bit as odious as those historical Christians.

Islam, like Christianity is an extremely tolerant religion.. unfortunately many of those who act in its name use it for their own ends.. even more unfortunately, in both Christianity and Islam, the more unpleasant are in the ascendancy.. many do not even believe in a God.

The quotation was that of Karl Marx, but he was not the first to use such a claim.. The Marquis de Sade, no lover of priests and religion, used something very similar half a century earlier in his novel "'L'Histoire de Juliette".


"Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Karl Marx 'Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right' (1843)"

[Canticle]

my statement was one sentence, thats it.... nothing more.....
and once again, I never said he was truthful.... you said I said that....

once again, you have proven you misread things....

yes I asked you a few times to stop multi quoting everything I say... as I already know what I have said in my posts..... but multiquoting is how other people get their facts wrong.... as you have proven

now once again.... I do not give a rats ass about you and adam..... its NONE of my business and nor am I interested in the bisexual.com version of *coronation street *

so will you please stop trying to drag me into your drama / personal life....... whatever you call it....... if that type of rubbish interested me, I would watch american daytime dramas.....

Nothing you say about me is correct, absolutely nothing. You are the one who is getting things wrong and muddled.

And if you don't give a ''rat ass,'' why mention a certain person, in the manner, you did? There has you be a reason, you would bring up that person and comment that the person, was vindicated and truthful. Such a thing does not get mentioned, without a reason and you won't say what that reason was.

By the way.....I don't ''do'' Coronation Street, or any day time American (or British), drama! I like my dramatic entertainment to be classy and have some merit, the players upon the stage, or screen, being seasoned and highly talented actors.

[Canticle]

Well said :)

Reality on the ground dictates that we take good care of the people living on the land today with all the facts on the ground. It means Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Arabs or whoever it is that is there.

Yes, it was well said and that reality should most definitely be humans caring about their fellow humans, no matter what their race, creed, colour or sexuality might be. We don't have to agree with someone, approve of their behaviour or even like a person/people, to care about them. Maybe one day humanity will act in such a manner. However, I fear that the dawning of that day, is a long way off.

[darkeyes]

Well said :)

Reality on the ground dictates that we take good care of the people living on the land today with all the facts on the ground. It means Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Arabs or whoever it is that is there.

This thread like so many others has expanded into other linked areas.. I intend this to be my last word on the subject for now..until something stupid and nasty occurs again to reopen the debate..for it will happen and it will prove nasty..

That attack on the convoy and the death of so many people is a tragedy.. the interception was in my view, and the view of most nations and indeed the United Nations, illegal..the blockade of Gaza is illegal and Israel is the principle culprit for its intransigence and its intent on neutering any and all opposition to its hegemony in the region.. it rules by fear and overpowering military force.

Yet whatever the rights and wrongs, if ever peace is to be reached in the region a properly constituted and recognised Palestinian state must be created.. one which for preference is not Islamic, but secular and run on lines as decided by the Palestinians themselves, not as decided by Israel or the international community. It may be that such a state, being secular is unnacceptable to Palestinians, it will almost certainly meet considerable opposition from many Islamic groups and groups who claim to be Islamic, yet given proper support and not dictat from outside, I believe that such a state is not only feasible and possible, but essential to achieving the aim of perpetual peace in the region. This state, being secular must be open to all to participate in daily political, business and social life, irrespective of ethnic origin, creed or religion. That all are considered equal under the law is a necessary prerequisite to ensuring all are treated equally. Proper protections for all must be put in place and all parties have to understand just what is at stake..

That the world will require to provide masses of aid, technical, economic and logistical, goes without saying, for unless such aid is forthcoming the new state would quickly degenerate into chaos and we would potentially be back to square one. The new state must be gievn a real opportunity to thrive and prosper to give it a real chance of fighting off what will be an undoubted move by extreme Islamic and other groups to change its secular status and use the resources of the country for its own ends.. yet what better way of fighting them off than providing a state which is prosperous, has good justice and gives its citizens a decnt opportunity to better their lives.

Israel naturally has to play its proper part and assist the new state in achieving prosperity. It must not respond as it has in the past to any attacks on its soil by paramilitary groups, by invading the sovereign territory of the new state.. this will be a hard temptation for them to resist but it has to be made clear that such activites will only return the region to the chaos of the past and are unnacceptable.. the United Nations has to be guarantor of the sovereignty of the new state and it must be made doubly clear to Israel that any invasion of Palestine the state will meet with the most severe sanctions. Equally, the UN must be the guarantor of the sovereignty of Israel, and all states in the region have to be made to understand that Israel exists, has the right to exist and that UN sanctions will be applied to any which breaks with that international edict.

Israel could go farther in easing the situation.. it should and could if it wished, renounce zionism and repeal all law which is racist and designed to keep Israel as a Jewish state and promote Jewish supremacy and reverse many of the acts which has so isolated and marginalised a dwindling arab population.. the Jerusalem wall has to be demolished many new Jewish settlements abandoned and those displaced by their creation have to be allowed to return home..I talk here of those settlements which have been built over the last 40 years.. the issue of arabs who were forced to leave in 1948 is a matter which has to be considered but to which there is no easy answer, but some form of return must be cosidered, and/or compensation for displacement paid. Israel must realise that it can no longer continue to be the state as we now know it. Israel can and should become a true member of the international community by truly encompassing all within the state who are citizens of Israel and provide for them the same equal protections and access to daily political, business and social life that Palestine will offer. Equal opportunity for all and a move to truly integrate all the peoples of Israel into a single people of the nation. I am on record as saying I believe the days of the nation state are numbered and I still believe that. But their day is not yet done and we must face the reality of where we are now. I doubt Israel will wish to move in that direction but every effort must be made to convince it that it would be an immense aid to achieving a lasting peace, but the process must not be derailed because of it.. time and common sense after Palestine is created may well resolve the issue of zionism within Israel.

The middle east is a powder keg getting drier by the day.. Palestine even more so.. resolving the Palestine issue which more than any other would help defuse the situation and help all nations in the region truly begin the move of coming together and begin to try and understand each other. For the pruposes of this discussion I have omitted reference to Iran. Resolving Palestine would substantially neuter Iran and it would be even more of a voice in the wilderness than it is now. It too of course would be bound by the UN to accept any settlement and in time it would begin to see the sense of it.. I have never believed Iran to be the bogeyman that so many others, particularly in the US do, but I do believe it extremely important in achieving peace and it is potentially a spanner in the works the world could well do without.

What I suggest is not set in stone.. it is hugely problematical, and filled with bloody great holes, but it is a framework for a way forward. Whoever we think is responsible for the mess isnt relevant to sorting the mess out.. recrimination has to be kept to a minumum but somehow, Israeli and Palestinian have to sit down someday and work things out.. the international community has an obligation to facilitate that, but not control it. And with that, Fran has said her bit. Now I suggest for now, we allow this thread to at least sleep for a while...

[Canticle]

Fran....let me say that I agree with every word you posted here and echo your final sentiments......totally.

[tenni]

"Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare."

The video in question is a good professional quality video. It presents facts to sway people to believe that Israel' position and actions were appropriate. It is rather one sided. An unbiased reporter might have inquired what the man meant when he referred to wanting to be a martyr as an example. The posters who are questioning the propaganda value of the video are posters who see Israel as an innocent. It reinforces their perspective. The same reverse argument may also be made. The difference is that the video is one sided and it only presents one perspective rather than both.

[rissababynta]

[QUOTE=Canticle;173121]though I believe it is wrong to call any belief PaganQUOTE]

Uhhh....what...:/

[Long Duck Dong]

"Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare."

The video in question is a good professional quality video. It presents facts to sway people to believe that Israel' position and actions were appropriate. It is rather one sided. An unbiased reporter might have inquired what the man meant when he referred to wanting to be a martyr as an example. The posters who are questioning the propaganda value of the video are posters who see Israel as an innocent. It reinforces their perspective. The same reverse argument may also be made. The difference is that the video is one sided and it only presents one perspective rather than both.

questioning it, or just not accepting the video as the truth but part of it???

I do agree that the martyr statement is open to personal opinion.... hence I did not touch on it and speculate as to the meaning......

personally, I think that the video is not israeli in origin.... its from a person that is trying to say that the people that attacked the soldiers were martyrs to a cause...a bit like suicide bombers.....
I can see no proof of that.....

the evidence I have seen and heard from a number of sources, indicate to me that the people on the boat that attacked the soldiers, were activists of turkish origin...... however there is no proof that they were martyrs or that their reason for being on the ship, was to attack the soldiers... as that would require them to have fore knowledge that the israelis would board the ship....

now I do not see israel as innocent, I have never denied the fact that they shot and killed 9 people on a ship.... and I have not denied the fact that they acted in the same manner as most people that get attacked.....
but I refuse to say that israel is totally in the wrong for defending themselves from a hostile attack from armed people on a aid mission

that would be like saying the police should not defend themselves in the midst of a riot as people have the right to protest....

[Long Duck Dong]

Nothing you say about me is correct, absolutely nothing. You are the one who is getting things wrong and muddled.

And if you don't give a ''rat ass,'' why mention a certain person, in the manner, you did? There has you be a reason, you would bring up that person and comment that the person, was vindicated and truthful. Such a thing does not get mentioned, without a reason and you won't say what that reason was.

By the way.....I don't ''do'' Coronation Street, or any day time American (or British), drama! I like my dramatic entertainment to be classy and have some merit, the players upon the stage, or screen, being seasoned and highly talented actors.

so i am wrong when I say that you were calling me out over tenni and DD's issue with the video ???

so I am wrong when I remind you that it was tenni and dd and you ignore it

so I am wrong when I point out that I have no interest in your personal life and you continue to bring it up again and again

so I am wrong I tell you, that I never said adam is truthful.... and you are arguing that I did say it....

on brother jack / canticle / falconangel / jeannie...... LDD is wrong as always.... shrugs..... I am happy to be wrong.... yet again......

now..... let the matter rest canticle, so the choice is in your hands.... keep your personal issues and personal life to yourself and leave me out of it..... as you already have one banned account cos of mails to drew... and I already know that people are close to contacting him again.....

I trust you are intelligent enuf to realise that I am protecting your ass now...... so smile and run with it

[Canticle]

[QUOTE=Canticle;173121]though I believe it is wrong to call any belief PaganQUOTE]

Uhhh....what...:/


Nah...you misunderstand what I said Rissa and that is my fault, for wording something badly. With that comment, I meant that no belief is a wrong belief. For Christians and others, to refer to pagan beliefs in a derogatory manner and in doing do, try to make them sound like evil beliefs.......is not right. To the Roman's, until Constantine adopted Christianity, as the religion of the empire, Christianity and Judaism and any other religious belief, of those the peoples the Roman's conquered, were deemed pagan. I guess every religion is likely to say the same sort of thing about other beliefs.

I meant calling pagan beliefs, pagan, in a derogatory sense......not that there were no pagan beliefs. How can any ''official'' religion have the right to call pagan beliefs evil. The beliefs of the ancients, which are still believed by some, today, can only be evil, if they are used for evil purposes, just like all the belief systems are capable of doing.

To venerate the earth and all that is upon it and to find it sacred and to believe that the cosmos is also sacred and wonderful....is a rather beautiful thing to believe. I hope that clears that matter up, for I can assure you, that Spiritualists have every respect for pagan beliefs, as we do all belief, or disbelief.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to get misunderstood in type.....something which would not happen in conversation.

If only the many Christians who celebrate Christmas, Easter etc, would realise that Christianity muscled in on those special, pagan celebrations and took them over. Many of the traditions associated with Christmas, have stayed with Christianity, from pagan times and I am very glad that they have.

[AdamKadmon43]

This posts in this thread have considerably re-enforced a theory that I have held for quite some time. That theory being that people, for the most part, decide what they want to believe based principally on how they feel about something. They then proceed to construct their arguments to fit their beliefs. They start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it.

I would suppose that no one's initial opinion about anything ever gets much changed regardless of all the bantering back and forth.

But it is interesting to watch.

[Long Duck Dong]

thank you adam....... and thats why I made the remark you were vindicted.....
we crossed swords once or twice.... and indeed, you were correct.... I just never saw it, until this thread.....

so, I concede that I was incorrect, and you were indeed right

[Canticle]

thank you adam....... and thats why I made the remark you were vindicted.....
we crossed swords once or twice.... and indeed, you were correct.... I just never saw it, until this thread.....

so, I concede that I was incorrect, and you were indeed right

No, not so......not so at all LDD. You addressed me and brought a certain name out of the bag....that was very deliberate and you told me to go and read past posts...You didn't bring out the name of anyone else and aim it at a particular person.

[Canticle]

This posts in this thread have considerably re-enforced a theory that I have held for quite some time. That theory being that people, for the most part, decide what they want to believe based principally on how they feel about something. They then proceed to construct their arguments to fit their beliefs. They start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it.

I would suppose that no one's initial opinion about anything ever gets much changed regardless of all the bantering back and forth.

But it is interesting to watch.



Heard this one before....many times....actually heard.

[Long Duck Dong]

No, not so......not so at all LDD. You addressed me and brought a certain name out of the bag....that was very deliberate and you told me to go and read past posts...You didn't bring out the name of anyone else and aim it at a particular person.

and your point is ???????

do not try and tell me I am wrong for stating to adam that I was wrong in regards to him...... I have the ability to admit my mistakes and when I am wrong.... and I will actively state when I am wrong..... and yes with adams past remarks in other threads and my misunderstanding of them.... I WAS WRONG.... hence adamkadmon was vindicated.... the truth in his words was proven by your own statements....

[Canticle]

and your point is ???????

do not try and tell me I am wrong for stating to adam that I was wrong in regards to him...... I have the ability to admit my mistakes and when I am wrong.... and I will actively state when I am wrong..... and yes with adams past remarks in other threads and my misunderstanding of them.... I WAS WRONG.... hence adamkadmon was vindicated.... the truth in his words was proven by your own statements....

Which remarks, upon which threads?

''the truth in his words was proven by your own statements....''

Which truth? Which words? How is the truth of the words proven by my own statements? Please explain.

And why did you raise a certain person's name, in the first place? Please explain that. So far, you have not come up with a reason for that.

However, I have had a comment made to me, in a thread, which I started and a comment which is totally without foundation and totally incorrect, but then it would be, because I know the truth of events and happenings and who I am and what my life is like and the person posting to me, does not. The person posting to me, in that thread, knows absolutely nothing.

[Long Duck Dong]

read my lips..... CASE CLOSED....

[Canticle]

read my lips..... CASE CLOSED....

Uh Uh

You just don't have any answers

[darkeyes]

thank you adam....... and thats why I made the remark you were vindicted.....
we crossed swords once or twice.... and indeed, you were correct.... I just never saw it, until this thread.....

so, I concede that I was incorrect, and you were indeed right But he is very wrong Duckie.. thats why the world still exists, and humanity has progessed as it has.. and the very statement you make here is but one small example of how wrong he is.. if he was right, then there would ineed be no hope for any of us..

[Canticle]

thank you adam....... and thats why I made the remark you were vindicted.....
we crossed swords once or twice.... and indeed, you were correct.... I just never saw it, until this thread.....

so, I concede that I was incorrect, and you were indeed right

'' and indeed, you were correct.... I just never saw it, until this thread.....''

What were you incorrect about and what did you never see until this thread?

[Long Duck Dong]

But he is very wrong Duckie.. thats why the world still exists, and humanity has progessed as it has.. and the very statement you make here is but one small example of how wrong he is.. if he was right, then there would ineed be no hope for any of us..

he is wrong in your eyes... and thats nothing to do with me, fran.....

I was wrong on something adam said, and I fully acknowledge it..... regardless of what anybody thinks or says,..... I WAS WRONG.... so I admitted to it and acknowledged my mistake......

thats all I have to say on the matter ....

[darkeyes]

This posts in this thread have considerably re-enforced a theory that I have held for quite some time. That theory being that people, for the most part, decide what they want to believe based principally on how they feel about something. They then proceed to construct their arguments to fit their beliefs. They start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it.

I would suppose that no one's initial opinion about anything ever gets much changed regardless of all the bantering back and forth.

But it is interesting to watch.

He is wrong about this Duckie..I apologise if I have misunderstood and you are referring to something else... peoples opinions do change.. we see it every day in every walk of life.. we see it when the evidence is so overwheming that we have no alternative..we see it when people are daft enough to believe propaganda of one kind or other.. we see it when people say "I'm sorry..I was wrong..." and when people agree to things that at one point they had castigated as immoral or wrong... or when as in the case of Bloody Sunday, the British Government and the British people.. the evidence provides them with little alternative..we saw it at the Orgreave Colliery where once again the forces of law and order were proved to have gotten out of order.. we see it in many things in this world..

In one sense only Adam has a point.. in a forum such as this people do take a position and stick to it..it is in the nature of the beast.. but even then it does happen that people change a view.. and I resent his insinuation that I by definition have a position and proceed to construct argument to fit my belief.. the arguments exist in my mind, and in other pleaces before I say a word here.. the conclusion comes from in part sentiment and instinct, in part common sense, and in part from observation and experience... but when faced with the reality of the world, people often have little option but to change their position either through that reality, circumstance or when faced with the evidence.. that is how and why humanity has advanced such as it has, and why the world is a much less dangerous place than it otherwise could be.. that is why we are a social species..

[Long Duck Dong]

He is wrong about this Duckie..I apologise if I have misunderstood and you are referring to something else... peoples opinions do change.. we see it every day in every walk of life.. we see it when the evidence is so overwheming that we have no alternative..we see it when people are daft enough to believe propaganda of one kind or other.. we see it when people say "I'm sorry..I was wrong..." and when people agree to things that at one point they had castigated as immoral or wrong... or when as in the case of Bloody Sunday, the British Government and the British people.. the evidence provides them with little alternative..we saw it at the Orgreave Colliery where once again the forces of law and order were proved to have gotten out of order.. we see it in many things in this world..

In one sense only Adam has a point.. in a forum such as this people do take a position and stick to it..it is in the nature of the beast.. but even then it does happen that people change a view.. and I resent his insinuation that I by definition have a position and proceed to construct argument to fit my belief.. the arguments exist in my mind, and in other pleaces before I say a word here.. the conclusion comes from in part sentiment and instinct, in part common sense, and in part from observation and experience... but when faced with the reality of the world, people often have little option but to change their position either through that reality, circumstance or when faced with the evidence.. that is how and why humanity has advanced such as it has, and why the world is a much less dangerous place than it otherwise could be.. that is why we are a social species..

its ok, fran..... I was just trying to distance myself from a few issues in the thread.....

I agree with you and adam, there are people that will change and adjust their opinions as they learn more.... and people that will take a stance and build their argument about it, ignoring all other possibilities....

I perfer to change my opinions.... it makes it easier for me when I am wrong, to admit it lol

its a shame the thread has turned to shit.... as there is info coming to light that may just explain what actually was happening with the boarding of the ship and reveal things that put a whole new light on what happened before the ship was boarded and after....
putting two and two together, reveals something quite interesting indeed.... and actually clears the israelis and the protestors of wrong doing

[R. Kestrel]

Gee, what a surprise that people in Gaza are desperate, considering that Israel has Gaza under seige and is blocking humanitarian aid from its people under the pretext that all shipments into the blockade zone are arms.

Of course I don't condone suicide bombings or violence on the part of the Palestinians. But let's put this in perspective. Israel is using any incident of violence as an excuse to continue this punishment, and their blockade of Gaza has been unremittingly brutal.

[Hephaestion]

A few days ago (ca 18 Jun 2010) it was announced that the Israeli Parliament approved the relaxation of the blockade saying that anything that was non-military would be allowed through to Gaza.

Yesterday (21 Jun 2010) or the day before there was mention of suspending this because a ship / boat left for Gaza from the Lebanon.

Is Israel speaking with forked tongue?

[Canticle]

he is wrong in your eyes... and thats nothing to do with me, fran.....

I was wrong on something adam said, and I fully acknowledge it..... regardless of what anybody thinks or says,..... I WAS WRONG.... so I admitted to it and acknowledged my mistake......

thats all I have to say on the matter ....


If this thread has turned to shit, then it has done so, when certain people decided to either take comments personally or to make them personal.

When people are discussing an issue and appear to take criticism of a country as something very personal, when others, who have opposing views, state that they are not in favour of violence on either side of a conflict, be it terrorism or a state defending itself, then there is something very wrong happening

You brought up the name of a certain person and in a post to me. That person you mentioned, had, at the time, made only one post upon the thread and this consisting of one sentence, to make a remark about something posted by Pasa.

You very deliberately raised that certain person's name and in a post to me, not a general post. You had a reason for that and you will not say why.

Are you trying to say that a one sentence post, by that certain person, triggered you to remember something said, on other threads, sometime ago? It is too much of a coincidence, that you mentioned that certain person, in a post to me, far too much of a coincidence.

I think it is also too much of a coincidence, that I am then attacked, in a very personal manner, upon another thread, by a person who was posting upon this thread and is closely connected to you.

An attack where I am referred to as a ''bored housewife,'' ''cheating upon her husband,'' flirting with someone and then finding out certain things.

Far too much of a coincidence. So I will ask you, once again and very politely, why you decided to mention a certain person, in a post to me? What was it, that so coincidentily, caused you to have this revelation about that particular person (who had only made a one sentence post, on this thread, at the time), and why you felt the need to mention that certain person in a post directed at me? You had a reason. What was it?

[Canticle]

Gee, what a surprise that people in Gaza are desperate, considering that Israel has Gaza under seige and is blocking humanitarian aid from its people under the pretext that all shipments into the blockade zone are arms.

Of course I don't condone suicide bombings or violence on the part of the Palestinians. But let's put this in perspective. Israel is using any incident of violence as an excuse to continue this punishment, and their blockade of Gaza has been unremittingly brutal.

I would agree with every word you say, in this post.

[Canticle]

A few days ago (ca 18 Jun 2010) it was announced that the Israeli Parliament approved the relaxation of the blockade saying that anything that was non-military would be allowed through to Gaza.

Yesterday (21 Jun 2010) or the day before there was mention of suspending this because a ship / boat left for Gaza from the Lebanon.

Is Israel speaking with forked tongue?


Does it come as any surprise Heph. It's the sort of thing a state...any state, will do. Disappointing though.

[Canticle]

Just as there are children suffering in Israel, when the most heinous of terrorist attacks take place, so there are children suffering in Gaza, when Israel begins reprisal attacks.

It doesn't matter which side is suffering. It doesn't matter where in the world, that suffering may take place. It doesn't matter what race, colour, creed, gender or sexuality. It is always the innocent who suffer.

[darkeyes]

its ok, fran..... I was just trying to distance myself from a few issues in the thread.....

I agree with you and adam, there are people that will change and adjust their opinions as they learn more.... and people that will take a stance and build their argument about it, ignoring all other possibilities....

I perfer to change my opinions.... it makes it easier for me when I am wrong, to admit it lol

its a shame the thread has turned to shit.... as there is info coming to light that may just explain what actually was happening with the boarding of the ship and reveal things that put a whole new light on what happened before the ship was boarded and after....
putting two and two together, reveals something quite interesting indeed.... and actually clears the israelis and the protestors of wrong doing
It is an exaggeration to say that the thread has turned to shit.. it has however developed a personal edge between u and Darling and Canticle which has nothing to do with the thread and has in some degree detracted from it. That has no place on this thread.. it is not quite the same personal edge as when I sounded off at Pasa since that had at least a connection to the subject matter.. I am at a loss to understand why it has happened. I am not pointing a finger, but am disappointed that something has developed to detract from such an important discussion which has to do with a personal issue involving Canticle and Adam. It is done now..but it all seems so unnecessary... ridicule is an old trick to discredit people as you well know and it seems that is what has been going on here. What the truth of the matter is I do not know, nor do I particularly wish to be enlightened.. there are places for personal issues to be pursued.. in the midst a debate isn't one of them..

.. once, not long ago in another thread involving another member I said I loathe witchhunts.. you may remember... this smacks every bit as much of a witch hunt as that other member was having unnecessarily to endure...

[tenni]

Ok..personal conflicts aside and getting back to what Hep has posted in #792.

I also reported about a statement that Israel was going to permit more humanitarian aid in and was going to permit aid in more in line with what the Un determines the material to be. There was something about cement being permitted as long as the UN (or others ) supervised that it was going to build schools and hospitals etc. and not Hammas bunkers.

Was this to permit the aid in via land or did it include sea? Any more news on why Israel seems to be changing what they agreed to?

[Long Duck Dong]

A few days ago (ca 18 Jun 2010) it was announced that the Israeli Parliament approved the relaxation of the blockade saying that anything that was non-military would be allowed through to Gaza.

Yesterday (21 Jun 2010) or the day before there was mention of suspending this because a ship / boat left for Gaza from the Lebanon.

Is Israel speaking with forked tongue?

iran is a supporter of gaza, and that appears to be where most of the weapons are coming from..... that and thru egypt, thru the tunnels..... however that doesn't mean that egypt is supporting or condoning the weapons movement..

[Long Duck Dong]

Gee, what a surprise that people in Gaza are desperate, considering that Israel has Gaza under seige and is blocking humanitarian aid from its people under the pretext that all shipments into the blockade zone are arms.

Of course I don't condone suicide bombings or violence on the part of the Palestinians. But let's put this in perspective. Israel is using any incident of violence as an excuse to continue this punishment, and their blockade of Gaza has been unremittingly brutal.

the reason the blockade started was to stop the ongoing attacks against israel...... and based around recent reports, hamas is still refusing to work with the obama government with peace talks between gaza and israel

israel and egypt both have been allowing aid to get to gaza.... and there have been attacks on the aid convoys

you can not be a victim and a aggressor, gaza is asking for help and aid... hamas is the group thats causing the issues in gaza with the aggressive actions... israel is trying to help the people of gaza, but at the same time, trying to protect themselves from hostile action from gaza......

its a bit like the korea issue, and the trade embargos and restrictions..... then the talk about starving people there...... you can not have it both ways.... you can not cut off a country then expect the people that run it, to be all nice and friendly about your actions

[Hephaestion]

Point taken LDD but Lebanon is just to the north of Israel, along the coast.

.

[Long Duck Dong]

I know.... but what is the best way to be involved without appearing to be involved.....

if it was me, i would not send the weapons directly but thru a middle man...or middle ship ...as irans not exactly on the list of some countries favourites...lol

not saying thats happening, as there is no proof of that.....

[Long Duck Dong]

It is an exaggeration to say that the thread has turned to shit.. it has however developed a personal edge between u and Darling and Canticle which has nothing to do with the thread and has in some degree detracted from it. That has no place on this thread.. it is not quite the same personal edge as when I sounded off at Pasa since that had at least a connection to the subject matter.. I am at a loss to understand why it has happened. I am not pointing a finger, but am disappointed that something has developed to detract from such an important discussion which has to do with a personal issue involving Canticle and Adam. It is done now..but it all seems so unnecessary... ridicule is an old trick to discredit people as you well know and it seems that is what has been going on here. What the truth of the matter is I do not know, nor do I particularly wish to be enlightened.. there are places for personal issues to be pursued.. in the midst a debate isn't one of them..

.. once, not long ago in another thread involving another member I said I loathe witchhunts.. you may remember... this smacks every bit as much of a witch hunt as that other member was having unnecessarily to endure...

if we remove all the non thread related posts, I reckon we would have about 13 pages of posts...not 27..lol

I was referring to the way that it appears that people only want to slam israel or be pro israel and find ways to justify their personal feelings about israel......

me, I am more interested in what happened..... as the more I read and view sites and videos.... the more I can see something that most of the posters are missing..... but thats my nature..... I do not see things in black and white....

if what I have read is correct ( turkish and protestor and media sources )... israel never shot any protestors or aid workers.... they were not on the upper deck where the shootings took place......

have you noticed that no aid agency has mentioned their members being shot and killed..... strange... surely a aid agency / protest movement would be quick to mourn the loss of their own people

unless they were not aid workers or protestors..... they were in fact militants as suggested by some of the aid workers and protestors that stated that group boarded at another port of call..... and as suggested by the finding of the laminated pics of people on the israeli soldiers.......

I am not trying to exempt israel from any blame, I would like to see them held accountable for what happened, not the media version..... but for all accounts and purposes, not the killing of any aid workers or protestors.... but militants on a aid ship.....
thats based around the info I have seen, read and heard..... and I am not saying its the truth... but its a bloody good chance its the truth about the shootings on the ship.....

[Long Duck Dong]

Ok..personal conflicts aside and getting back to what Hep has posted in #792.

I also reported about a statement that Israel was going to permit more humanitarian aid in and was going to permit aid in more in line with what the Un determines the material to be. There was something about cement being permitted as long as the UN (or others ) supervised that it was going to build schools and hospitals etc. and not Hammas bunkers.

Was this to permit the aid in via land or did it include sea? Any more news on why Israel seems to be changing what they agreed to?

I researched it....... and its correct......

uk news source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7842097/Israel-to-allow-aid-in-to-Gaza.html)

apparently, its the uk that is making headway with israel...as I have read in a few sites that hamas is refusing to work with obama led peace talks, but talking with the uk about aid and other issues.....

it looks like egypt may be assisting with the aid as well but iran is set to try and send another blockade busting ship to gaza with pro palestine activists on board......
yahoo news source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gaza_blockade)

if that is true about iran.... then it adds support to what I have been saying about the aid ships carrying activists and not just aid workers....

[Hephaestion]

Is Lebanon merely a puppet to pure malevolence? As you say LDD there is no worthy evidence of this.

Does it matter where humanitarian supplies come from provded that they are humanitarian supplies. If Iran is behaving in a caring way then surely Iran should be rewarded for this and the Gazan Palestinians benefit?

As Israel has said that there is no blockade to humanitarian supplies then any ship carrying such is not blockade busting.

If Israel prophesses one thing and does another then Israel does itself no good - again.

.

[DuckiesDarling]

Is Lebanon merely a puppet to pure malevolence? As you say LDD there is no worthy evidence of this.

Does it matter where humanitarian supplies come from provded that they are humanitarian supplies. If Iran is behaving in a caring way then surely Iran should be rewarded for this and the Gazan Palestinians benefit?

As Israel has said that there is no blockade to humanitarian supplies then any ship carrying such is not blockade busting.

If Israel prophesses one thing and does another then Israel does itself no good - again.

.


You know Heph I once read a quote that is fitting here.

Evil done in the name of good is still evil, but Good done in the name of Evil is still good. It seems that intentions should be weighed more carefully than who or where the aid comes from.

I just don't want to see it used as another excuse to go after a country that is just trying to defend itself. It's a bad situation when the people who need aid are denied it by the very government they elected.

[Long Duck Dong]

Is Lebanon merely a puppet to pure malevolence? As you say LDD there is no worthy evidence of this.

Does it matter where humanitarian supplies come from provded that they are humanitarian supplies. If Iran is behaving in a caring way then surely Iran should be rewarded for this and the Gazan Palestinians benefit?

As Israel has said that there is no blockade to humanitarian supplies then any ship carrying such is not blockade busting.

If Israel prophesses one thing and does another then Israel does itself no good - again.

.

iran has stated its pro palestine and there are sources that say that iran is sending weapons.... but that doesn't mean that there are not aid workers in lebanon actively assisting with the aid effort.....

its like oliver north, and America..... america sends aid, oliver north arranged weapons ....

but I agree... what matters is that the people in gaza, get aid.... by whatever means.....and from whatever country.....
however, the aid goes thru ashdod port.... and thats a safe guard for all the aid workers etc... otherwise could you imagine a ship sailing directly to gaza and some hothead turning on the ship with a couple of RPGS.....
we think that israel is out of line ??? imagine the outcry if aid workers were attacked while unloading the aid supplies in gaza.....

[R. Kestrel]

You know Heph I once read a quote that is fitting here.

Evil done in the name of good is still evil, but Good done in the name of Evil is still good.
I believe the quote is "Fear not the evil men do in the name of evil, but beware the evil men do in the name of good." (Is it from Have Gun Will Travel?)

Anyway, it's a relief to see the rest of the Muslim nations in the Middle East offer the Palestinians anything but lip service.

[DuckiesDarling]

I believe the quote is "Fear not the evil men do in the name of evil, but beware the evil men do in the name of good." (Is it from Have Gun Will Travel?)

Anyway, it's a relief to see the rest of the Muslim nations in the Middle East offer the Palestinians anything but lip service.

No, R Kestrel that's not the quote and not anything that Paladin said. I believe it was in a fiction series about the Book of of the Prophet, the words of Vkandis.

[Hephaestion]

The situaiton is getting silly. The Palestinians need humanitairan help. It shouldn't matter whether the help is coming from Alpha Centauri So long as it is just that - help.

The Israelis have stated that they would allow this kind of help in but the minute it starts it would seem that the Israelis had their fingers crossed.

Shame on them.

[tenni]

Hep
Strange but we are not getting any of this in our media? any references....I guess that I could check the Guardian or?

[Hephaestion]

Hep
Strange but we are not getting any of this in our media? any references....I guess that I could check the Guardian or?

The ship from Lebanon and the change of heart by the Israelis was BBC.

The ship from Iran is info from LDD/DD - I accept this last as occurring but should check it out like you. The claim of nefarious influence of Iran on Lebanon is LDD/DD again

Right now most of our news has crept on. 2 main themes one is oil in the Gulf of Mexico, the other is our financial mess where everyone has to tighten belts and share toilet paper, except for the banking profession who donate theirs.

[AdamKadmon43]

But he is very wrong Duckie.. thats why the world still exists, and humanity has progessed as it has.. and the very statement you make here is but one small example of how wrong he is.. if he was right, then there would ineed be no hope for any of us..

I will respond to that by way of a private message......if you will allow me to do so.

[lovescum2]

I tried to read a lot of these posts, I have to say they WERE told to turn back and refused...so they got what they got when they decided to run it anyway....

as far as the Jews and Palestinian...

The Arabs attack Israel in the 7 day war and got there butts kicked by the Jews...the Palestinians backed the Arabs..so what are the Jews supposed to do just let them wander around causing havoc? The rest of the Arabs refused to let them into their countries.... So why not blame them for their troubles instead of Israel?

If your into religion (Bible, old testament) God said "Israel is the apple of mine eye"

I say back the Jews and try to work a peace out....The Arabs only want the Death of the Jews, and Destruction of Israel...they have said it many times with there own words and deeds...

The Jews just want to live in peace, but they aren't stupid. They have a strong military and rightly so, they need it with so many enemies wanting their death and destruction...

These are my thoughts about that, sorry if it pisses anyone off. :soapbox:

[darkeyes]

I will respond to that by way of a private message......if you will allow me to do so.I have no objection, Adam..as long as you understand the context in which my statement was made ...

[R. Kestrel]

as far as the Jews and Palestinian...

The Arabs attack Israel in the 7 day war and got there butts kicked by the Jews...the Palestinians backed the Arabs..so what are the Jews supposed to do just let them wander around causing havoc?
Uh, did I miss something? Didn't Israel do the initial attacking?

Wasn't it Israel who invaded the West Bank? Wasn't it Israel who bombed the Egyptian airfields? Isn't that the "attacking" that led up to the Six Day War?

And is the winner-take-all mentality the best way to conduct foreign policy?

Just thought I'd ask.

[darkeyes]

Uh, did I miss something? Didn't Israel do the initial attacking?

Wasn't it Israel who invaded the West Bank? Wasn't it Israel who bombed the Egyptian airfields? Isn't that the "attacking" that led up to the Six Day War?

And is the winner-take-all mentality the best way to conduct foreign policy?

Just thought I'd ask.

Indeed they did.. and not only the West Bank.. and before anyone says the Egyptian build up on Suez was a precursor to an attack on Israel.. the old Eastern bloc did it frequently on the borders of western Europe, and Nato had its own little soirees on the border with the east every so often.. we still await the attack by either.. the evidence actually points to a total unpreparedness by any of the 4 arab countries involved for a war.. but then no doubt I would say that wouldn't I?

..just thought I'd say it anyway...:)

[lovescum2]

No it was the Combined Arab forces that attacked Israel 1st in 1967, 6 day war.. US would not have backed them if they had started it.

Well several things led up to it but the Actual war was started by the Arabs.

Even US and Russia had conflicts that no one heard about..downed planes reported as accidents and such..so all countries involved in the war had a hand in it.

[Hephaestion]

Mummy, Johnny pulled my hair
Johnny?
Well Janet scratched my hand
Janet?
Well he looked at me hurtfully
Johnny
She said that I was rats and snails and puppy dogs tails
Janet?
That's because he had more chocolate than me last week
Johnny?
Well she hurt me last...........

and so on.

There are people suffering and all they want are the essentials of life. They want them today, irrelevant of what happened yesterday. The nation that endured atrocities in the past should remind itself of the effects. How sympathy and help was extended to the sufferers and how scorn was poured on the perpetrators.

.

[darkeyes]

No it was the Combined Arab forces that attacked Israel 1st in 1967, 6 day war.. US would not have backed them if they had started it.

Well several things led up to it but the Actual war was started by the Arabs.

Even US and Russia had conflicts that no one heard about..downed planes reported as accidents and such..so all countries involved in the war had a hand in it.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/six_day_war_1967.htm

Is that so?

[tenni]

Hep
I agree with your metaphor in post 820...lol

This situation can be analysed to death in determining who is just and who is unjust with their actions.

1/ Israel deserves to exist in the mid east now
2/ The Palestinians deserve their own country

After these points it gets really messy rather quickly when historical factors are layered on top of historical factors.

* if we can have over 820 posts on this is it any wonder that this seems a never to be resolved scenario?

[darkeyes]

Mummy, Johnny pulled my hair
Johnny?
Well Janet scratched my hand
Janet?
Well he looked at me hurtfully
Johnny
She said that I was rats and snails and puppy dogs tails
Janet?
That's because he had more chocolate than me last week
Johnny?
Well she hurt me last...........

and so on.

There are people suffering and all they want are the essentials of life. They want them today, irrelevant of what happened yesterday. The nation that endured atrocities in the past should remind itself of the effects. How sympathy and help was extended to the sufferers and how scorn was poured on the perpetrators.

.

Right Heph.. forgetting the past, misinterpreting it, and even lying about it is much of the reason why the mess exists.. and why hundreds of thousands of people are struggling to survive..

Corn today.. not after we are dead..

[R. Kestrel]

No it was the Combined Arab forces that attacked Israel 1st in 1967, 6 day war.
May I ask where you got this information?

[darkeyes]

May I ask where you got this information?

He certainly didn't get it in my school history lessons... or any reputable scource I can think of... maybe some little man in the pub .. even Israel accepts they began the war... its the reasons why they did so which are hotly disputed. They are actually quite proud of it... Maybe they are liars an all.. God..did I just say that???:eek: tee hee:tong:

[Gina7777]

Mummy, Johnny pulled my hair
Johnny?
Well Janet scratched my hand
Janet?
Well he looked at me hurtfully
Johnny
She said that I was rats and snails and puppy dogs tails
Janet?
That's because he had more chocolate than me last week
Johnny?
Well she hurt me last...........

and so on.

There are people suffering and all they want are the essentials of life. They want them today, irrelevant of what happened yesterday. The nation that endured atrocities in the past should remind itself of the effects. How sympathy and help was extended to the sufferers and how scorn was poured on the perpetrators.

.

YES! Jewish people have been oppressed all over the world. Can they not remember what that felt like?

[Annika L]

YES! Jewish people have been oppressed all over the world. Can they not remember what that felt like?

Gina, I take your point completely. But I think the problem is that (at least in the case of the Israelis) they remember SO well what that felt like that they are willing to go to any extreme in order to avoid a repetition, including the oppression of others. That is a sad dynamic that they will have to overcome before they can hope to move forward, I fear.

[darkeyes]

Gina, I take your point completely. But I think the problem is that (at least in the case of the Israelis) they remember SO well what that felt like that they are willing to go to any extreme in order to avoid a repetition, including the oppression of others. That is a sad dynamic that they will have to overcome before they can hope to move forward, I fear.

..and it is that decision and its consequential activity which may someday once again visit that oppression upon them... maybe they should think on that..

[lovescum2]

What my point is the Arabs were gathering forces to attack Israel. That is an attack of it self (If America had know the Japanese were sending forces to attack Hawaii and the Philippines, would they have attacked those forces...Thats the point I'm trying to make sorry if I didn't make myself clearer) ....Just because the Jews were smart enough to attack before they were finished getting ready seems like a smart move in a war were your going to be out numbered and surrounded.

[darkeyes]

What my point is the Arabs were gathering forces to attack Israel. That is an attack of it self (If America had know the Japanese were sending forces to attack Hawaii and the Philippines, would they have attacked those forces...Thats the point I'm trying to make sorry if I didn't make myself clearer) ....Just because the Jews were smart enough to attack before they were finished getting ready seems like a smart move in a war were your going to be out numbered and surrounded.

..isn't it interesting how people adjust their argument when proved they were talking poop, and then accept the official line without question.. dontcha jus luff 'em?:rolleyes:

...lil question sweetheart..ur nic?? Do u mean loves cum? Or love scum? Cos its not at all clear... maybe best go away and find a nice new one to save all the confusion in my tiny mind..;)

O dear..am I being patronising again? Naughty me.. smack hands and face...:eek:

[lovescum2]

You see it your way I see it mine, we'll go our separate ways with No hard feelings either way :)

Its Loves cum 2 :wiggle2:

[darkeyes]

You see it your way I see it mine, we'll go our separate ways with No hard feelings either way :)

Its Loves cum 2 :wiggle2:

None on my part sweetie.. wish everyone was so nice about my warped sense of humour... and I knew exactly what it was meant to be.. I'm just a cheeky cow and couldnt resist it..:tong:

[Annika L]

..and it is that decision and its consequential activity which may someday once again visit that oppression upon them... maybe they should think on that..

Agreed, Fran. That's what I mean when I say they'll need to overcome this dynamic before they can move forward. When they were oppressed the first time, it was unfair, a scattered people being oppressed as scapegoats because they were an easy target. Now they've had years as a State, and shown themselves to be no small oppressors themselves (right from the start of that State). They should think, and they should act (and should have acted) with greater integrity. But I think they suffer from cultural emotional scars that do not allow them to process such things effectively...that's the nicest face I can put on events, anyway. Hopefully, they'll have a chance to grow and learn and heal...and then to help others heal.

[mariersa]

Unorganisation is a sad thing in this regard ( but the others have strength of Politics )

[darkeyes]

Agreed, Fran. That's what I mean when I say they'll need to overcome this dynamic before they can move forward. When they were oppressed the first time, it was unfair, a scattered people being oppressed as scapegoats because they were an easy target. Now they've had years as a State, and shown themselves to be no small oppressors themselves (right from the start of that State). They should think, and they should act (and should have acted) with greater integrity. But I think they suffer from cultural emotional scars that do not allow them to process such things effectively...that's the nicest face I can put on events, anyway. Hopefully, they'll have a chance to grow and learn and heal...and then to help others heal.

When I was at school there was a girl a year older than I who gave me a really bad time. Everywhere I went she was in my face and pushed me. clouted me, slapped me..tried humiliation at every turn, and I was at times in floods because of it. Sneak attacks came from every direction. I was very little when it all started and she well over 5'.. why she disliked me so I havent a clue but it was a miserable time..

In my 3rd year I found her crying and really upset in an empty classroom.. she had been told she was being moved down a class for Art partly because she just wasnt putting in the effort.. she was a very good artist but was so full of herself that she didnt think she needed to try and the chickens came home to roost. It meant she wouldnt be able to take the exam she wanted and it had upset her quite understandably even allowing for her own arrogance. Fran being Fran chatted to her and for the first time found her to be as human and insecure as the next person, and I think it helped her to come to terms with her changed situation.. as she spoke, it seemed all the stresses of her life poured out and she told me things which were very personal, and which I could have used to really destroy her as a human being.

She left me alone after that, and from that day she was no longer the bitch I had thought her to be. I had found weakness in her, and a vulnerability which I could have easily used to my advantage were I to wish vengeance wreaked on her.. instead I acted as I think human beings should act when people are in trouble.. with compassion and understanding.. and we even became friends in time.. not close ones but good ones I think.

She never did sit that exam, although she did sit her Higher Grade and eventually went to the Glasgow School of Art where she came away with a first and is now quite a successful graphic designer and moderately successful artist.. and years later, I found that she had told a mutual friend that if it were not for that chat in an empty classroom, she would never have picked herself up and gotten on with trying to achieve her dreams.. probably ovestating it.. but luffly 2 hear..