• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Sick sick world what is wrong with people

dawaxman said:
Then it's hamas that you need to focus your attention on not Israel

It's hamas who are preventing a two state solution and before them the PLO

The state of Palestine has rejected 5 offers of two state solution
Click to expand...
And the terms of those "solutions" has in no way benefitted anyone but Israel.
It's clear which side you are on, and that's fine. I'm on no ones side in that conflict, and I'm able to see it from both perspectives.
 
dawaxman said:
I wish the first emboldened text were true but the Palestine 'supporters' have become more and more entrenched over the last 12 days and are siding with the actions of hamas and believing all the lies they are spewing too

As for the second emboldened text, again, I don't believe the IDF is "bombing the brick" out of Gaza

You're using that phrase with no facts to support it and like I've said above, I doubt they'd be bombing so indiscriminately if, for no other reason, than to avoid murdering the Israeli hostages
Click to expand...
There's plenty of evidence of entire blocks and areas being totally flattened.
 
Kandi1977 said:
Nazism, Marxism and communism aren't political decisions. They're ideologies. I'm fully aware of what and why Israel was founded. But in that process it meant that the people who lived in that area were driven away, and Israel have been slaughtering Palestine for decades and forcing them away to establish their own settlements. They've been just as bad as Hamas, often worse, answering kids who throw rocks by killing them in cold blod. I'm in now way legitimasing what Hamaz are doing or have done before, but Israel are no better!
Click to expand...
You're just trolling... I'm not going to rise to it
 
dawaxman said:
I think they probably prioritised finding this information as it was the single most important piece of information for the future of Israel at that time

By the way, in the same spirit as your post

How were Palestinians able to calculate the death toll of the hospital explosion within a matter of 1-2 hours and clear away all of this bodies so quickly too? "Just seems a bit off "
Click to expand...

More important than trying to get some info on the initial attack, sounds unlikely. If @SpurMeUp says they don't talk on phones then all sounds a bit odd that this call was suddenly recorded from a phone.

They weren't, they just made up a nice round number which is why all the reports differed on the number. Still don't think there is an accurate number but I guess it's difficult to get accurate info at the moment.
 
P.D. said:
More important than trying to get some info on the initial attack, sounds unlikely. If @SpurMeUp says they don't talk on phones then all sounds a bit odd that this call was suddenly recorded from a phone.

They weren't, they just made up a nice round number which is why all the reports differed on the number. Still don't think there is an accurate number but I guess it's difficult to get accurate info at the moment.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I said "they don't talk on phones" did I? Anything is possible, working hard atm. I think I said Hamas are aware their phones are tapped. And for the attacks, Hamas kept it all under the radar top secrete, presumably without chatting about it on calls.
 
Last edited:
P.D. said:
More important than trying to get some info on the initial attack, sounds unlikely. If @SpurMeUp says they don't talk on phones then all sounds a bit odd that this call was suddenly recorded from a phone.

They weren't, they just made up a nice round number which is why all the reports differed on the number. Still don't think there is an accurate number but I guess it's difficult to get accurate info at the moment.
Click to expand...

Key words
 
monkeybarry said:
It's probably a symptom of the social media age - the need for instant information, which naturally doesn't allow for solid verification.
This is the first time I don't feel like the BBC are taking the cautious reporting style I would expect from them.
The items that come more from the BBC World Service side still seems to be doing what it should be.
I've always been a huge advocate for the BBC.
Click to expand...

The first part of your post is spot on and a real issue now for protecting journalistic integrity whilst trying to keep the world as up-to-date as possible. However it highlights how excellent news broadcasters across the board in this country have been despite the mass of unsubstantiated reports and misinformation to contend with at light speed. Try not to bend to the populist claptrap posted on this thread and elsewhere, and attempted coercion of either side to get The News to report their version of the news. The Beeb in particular are low hanging fruit because they have to provide equal footing for both sides even if one/both/either/neither of those sides is unpalatable.

I’ve come in too late in the day to be bothered to respond to some of the laughable content but a particular triumph for me to note was lambasting the BBC for their propaganda and one-sided reporting and then using a BBC article to articulate the actual events.

Meanwhile, whilst this nonsense is perpetuated, the actual victims of this conflict once again become footnotes to the story.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
I don't believe I said "they don't take on phones" did I? Anything is possible, working hard atm. But I think I said Hamas are aware their phones are tapped. And for the attacks, Hamas kept it all under the radar top secrete, presumably without chatting about it on calls.
Click to expand...
There was a report early on in the Telegraph that described them as having taken communications "back to the Stone Age" when planning for it. Nothing written, nothing recorded, nothing communicated except in person.
 
Kandi1977 said:
Nazism, Marxism and communism aren't political decisions. They're ideologies. I'm fully aware of what and why Israel was founded. But in that process it meant that the people who lived in that area were driven away, and Israel have been slaughtering Palestine for decades and forcing them away to establish their own settlements. They've been just as bad as Hamas, often worse, answering kids who throw rocks by killing them in cold blod. I'm in now way legitimasing what Hamaz are doing or have done before, but Israel are no better!
Click to expand...
That's clearly trolling.

There's no way someone can simultaneously hold that opinion and operate a keyboard. Neither, I believe, could anyone convince their carer to type it for them.
 
I have seen some posts today which absolutely reinforce my view that this is a time to choose words VERY carefully. I have seen some 'definitive' comments which have no deeper understanding of what the regional conflicts have been about for decades. It's really dangerous.
 
Kandi1977 said:
Nazism, Marxism and communism aren't political decisions. They're ideologies. I'm fully aware of what and why Israel was founded. But in that process it meant that the people who lived in that area were driven away, and Israel have been slaughtering Palestine for decades and forcing them away to establish their own settlements. They've been just as bad as Hamas, often worse, answering kids who throw rocks by killing them in cold blod. I'm in now way legitimasing what Hamaz are doing or have done before, but Israel are no better!
Click to expand...

A genuine question. How much do you personally know about the regional history and extended context?

By the way, 'Nazism' was born of a political ideology- National socialism. It was/is an ideology directly born of a political movement. Again, please be careful with your words. Context is also extremely important.
 
Please can people watch this video, and tell me if this guy is lying.
I don't know much about Israel/Palestine, I don't love or hate either side, I have no skin in the game. But this guy explains clearly how the Romans intervened in the area, then also talks extensively about 1850 and 1897 and the 1920s and lays out lots of very interesting facts before the Brits got involved.

From your statements, I'm pretty sure some of you in this thread haven't watched this yet.


Wider, I presume as with most wars, there is a small percentage of powerful Palestinians who are horrible racist murderers intent on war, and the same for the Israelis, and the vast majority of normal people are not like that and just want peace.
 
Bullet said:
Please can people watch this video, and tell me if this guy is lying.
I don't know much about Israel/Palestine, I don't love or hate either side, I have no skin in the game. But this guy explains clearly how the Romans intervened in the area, then also talks extensively about 1850 and 1897 and the 1920s and lays out lots of very interesting facts before the Brits got involved.

From your statements, I'm pretty sure some of you in this thread haven't watched this yet.


Wider, I presume as with most wars, there is a small percentage of powerful Palestinians who are horrible racist murderers intent on war, and the same for the Israelis, and the vast majority of normal people are not like that and just want peace.
Click to expand...


I've watched the first 10 minutes and he is somewhat selective in his view of things despite all his protestations about not being in the pay of the Israeli government etc.

His assertations about there being no mention of Palestine in ancient sources is easily disproved. Herodotus uses that term in the 5th century BCE and it is used elsewhere, although sparingly until, as he correctly says, the Romans use it to create a non-Jewish political province.

It is very hard to know anything meaningful about pre-literate societies though - for example, we know next to nothing about the Picts or the original Brits (pre-Celtic) people, we know little from the Celts themselves and it is one of the reason Britain is so poor in home mythologies as nothing was recorded pre-invasions when continental stories came in, we don't know who built Stonehenge, and the best source of information about 'Druids' is Julius Caesar writing at the point where they were vanishing rather than really meaningfully contemporary. So basically a lack of evidence is not evidence of a non-existence.

For context, the oldest copies of the Hebrew Scriptures are from the 2nd Century BCE so are also not contemporary to the Temple of Solomon or any of the stories recorded in them but are the eventual collection of a long oral tradition.

However, the Palestinians are mentioned in the Scriptures as it is thought they are the descendants of the Philistines which settled a section of coastal and and moved inward and feature in various stories.

Similarly with coinage etc, they just weren't really in use pre-Persian, Greek and Roman empires anywhere outside China so the fact there were no Palestinian, Philistine or Canaanite coins found means nothing.

The idea that Jerusalem wasn't important as it was never a capital of a Sultanate or a Caliphate is sort of true but that was mainly down to a) the geographic meaninglessness of its location (not a port, not on a major trade route, not defending any major resource and its one area of value (pilgrims) had mainly free access throughout that time bar the period round the Crusades when the Christian Kingdoms prevented non-Christians visiting) and b) the fact that most Islamic caliphates were either Egyptian (mamelukes) so their power was based in Cairo or Turkish so their power was based further north in Damascus. Mecca has never been the capital of any Islamic State and you can't question its importance to the faith so again I would say he is being deliberately disingenuous with his phrasing and equivalencies.

In terms of his graphic about ethnic cleansing by Arabic countries I think there is certainly some truth there (Muslim communities have been aggressively driving out non-Muslim communities in various countries over the last 70 odd years (e.g. Coptic Christians in Egypt, but one has to wonder what has changed since say WWII to make this happen given that those communities existed in places like Egypt for almost 2000 years before that and under Muslim rule since 700CE) but it is also highly selective in how it is framed. Israel ran a programme from 1948 inviting and encouraging Jews from all over the World to settle in Israel so a significant proportion of those numbers he showed with significant declines were not ethnic cleansing but rather, understandably, migration of Jews to the protection of their new Judaic state (which wasn't discouraged or interfered with by their original countries).

I'll try and watch the remaining part later but he hasn't convinced me so far.
 
Bullet said:
Please can people watch this video, and tell me if this guy is lying.
I don't know much about Israel/Palestine, I don't love or hate either side, I have no skin in the game. But this guy explains clearly how the Romans intervened in the area, then also talks extensively about 1850 and 1897 and the 1920s and lays out lots of very interesting facts before the Brits got involved.

From your statements, I'm pretty sure some of you in this thread haven't watched this yet.


Wider, I presume as with most wars, there is a small percentage of powerful Palestinians who are horrible racist murderers intent on war, and the same for the Israelis, and the vast majority of normal people are not like that and just want peace.
Click to expand...

I mentioned a few of these things some pages back. The Coptic Christians and their demise in the Middle East. And the way Jews were evicted from Arab nations. I’d recommend a book called the Aleppo Codex. It tells the true story of the oldest copy of the Bible known to exist. And also the final days of the Jewish community in Aleppo. It is more Indiana Jones than dull history book however. No one really knows where parts of this ancient manuscript disappeared to. I have an inclination that part of the missing section is in London! Wish I could say more. But check out the Aleppo Codex it’s a fantastic book.

There are a few things I’d disagree with this chap on. Firstly he doesn’t really admit that zionists also killed Arabs during that period from 1920 until the Isreali state was formed. There were tit for tat attacks and skirmishes from both sides.

But the biggest issue I have, a really big issue, Is he fails to make a distinction between Islam - a religion that is predominantly peaceful and about brotherhood, love, support and compassion - and fundamentalist Islam which shouldn’t really be classified as a religion at all. These Islamist - ISIS etc are death cults that use and abuse religion to recruit and manipulate. There needs to be a clear separation and distinction. It’s a decent piece and although he has a bias (all ‘his-story’ does), it covers a lot of ground.
 
Last edited:
Lost Mango said:
I've watched the first 10 minutes and he is somewhat selective in his view of things despite all his protestations about not being in the pay of the Israeli government etc.

His assertations about there being no mention of Palestine in ancient sources is easily disproved. Herodotus uses that term in the 5th century BCE and it is used elsewhere, although sparingly until, as he correctly says, the Romans use it to create a non-Jewish political province.

It is very hard to know anything meaningful about pre-literate societies though - for example, we know next to nothing about the Picts or the original Brits (pre-Celtic) people, we know little from the Celts themselves and it is one of the reason Britain is so poor in home mythologies as nothing was recorded pre-invasions when continental stories came in, we don't know who built Stonehenge, and the best source of information about 'Druids' is Julius Caesar writing at the point where they were vanishing rather than really meaningfully contemporary. So basically a lack of evidence is not evidence of a non-existence.

For context, the oldest copies of the Hebrew Scriptures are from the 2nd Century BCE so are also not contemporary to the Temple of Solomon or any of the stories recorded in them but are the eventual collection of a long oral tradition.

However, the Palestinians are mentioned in the Scriptures as it is thought they are the descendants of the Philistines which settled a section of coastal and and moved inward and feature in various stories.

Similarly with coinage etc, they just weren't really in use pre-Persian, Greek and Roman empires anywhere outside China so the fact there were no Palestinian, Philistine or Canaanite coins found means nothing.

The idea that Jerusalem wasn't important as it was never a capital of a Sultanate or a Caliphate is sort of true but that was mainly down to a) the geographic meaninglessness of its location (not a port, not on a major trade route, not defending any major resource and its one area of value (pilgrims) had mainly free access throughout that time bar the period round the Crusades when the Christian Kingdoms prevented non-Christians visiting) and b) the fact that most Islamic caliphates were either Egyptian (mamelukes) so their power was based in Cairo or Turkish so their power was based further north in Damascus. Mecca has never been the capital of any Islamic State and you can't question its importance to the faith so again I would say he is being deliberately disingenuous with his phrasing and equivalencies.

In terms of his graphic about ethnic cleansing by Arabic countries I think there is certainly some truth there (Muslim communities have been aggressively driving out non-Muslim communities in various countries over the last 70 odd years (e.g. Coptic Christians in Egypt, but one has to wonder what has changed since say WWII to make this happen given that those communities existed in places like Egypt for almost 2000 years before that and under Muslim rule since 700CE) but it is also highly selective in how it is framed. Israel ran a programme from 1948 inviting and encouraging Jews from all over the World to settle in Israel so a significant proportion of those numbers he showed with significant declines were not ethnic cleansing but rather, understandably, migration of Jews to the protection of their new Judaic state (which wasn't discouraged or interfered with by their original countries).

I'll try and watch the remaining part later but he hasn't convinced me so far.
Click to expand...
Thank you Mango, very interesting. You have a large brain and have put it to good use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back