• 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

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

scaramanga said:
It doesn't belong to anyone, there isn't a country there.

It's just an area claimed as a state by a terrorist group.
Click to expand...

So the UN 1947 partition that created Israel has no validity either then as it also delineated a Palestinian state? Israel was therefore, by your logic, the creation of terrorist activities by Zionists and illicit immigration?

And you continue to promote the lie that mandate Palestine was undeveloped and unoccupied. It had a population density greater than modern day Ireland and Australia and a number of other countries but we know facts and reality don't matter in your mind warp do they.


"They wanted to live where they were originally forced from" ...... :tearsofjoy: .... another unsubstantiated Bible story by the arch-atheist to justify his weak position. There is evidence of a Jewish population in Babylon and evidence of Jewish and Babylonian trading but little if any totally confirmed evidence of a forced exile or restriction on return.
 
I've written this before but the goal of "destroying Hamas" via military intervention isn't realistic. This is not just in the context of criticising Israel and their policies but also in terms of the accusation that Israel is committing war crimes/genocide in gaza.

Hamas are not a military force or a nice neat organisation with political and military structures and "bases" you can target in a military operation to remain within "rules of warfare".

The lines between paramilitary organisations operating in gaza and the west bank and the "civilian" population are practically non-existant. Hamas are drawn from, part of and integrated with the civilian population and structures in Palestine. There are no hamas bases. The fighters sleep with their families in apartment blocks with other families. They use civilian buildings and infrastructure to have meetings and store equipment. Hospitals, municipal buildings, shops: they're all Hamas infrastructure.

One of the issues with the hostages is that when Hamas broke through the fences and invaded Israel a tonne of general "civilians" from gaza invaded behind them. It was these people that took part in a lot of the more egregious looting, raping, torture and killing of women, children and civilians. Basically, Hamas lost control of the situation. I suspect the plan was to go in and make a point and take hostages. They never intended to have world media report on children being beheaded, pregnant women having their stomachs cut open and non-Israeli foreign tourists taking part in a music festival being raped and killed. They never intended to illicit the response they did from Israel. Most of Hamas' "leadership" and many key allies such as Iran and Hezbollah have paid the price with their lives as it stands.

Hamas have struggled to find all the hostages many of whom were taken and being held by "civilians" or criminal gangs within gaza.

Even Israel have now decided that a sustained military campaign in gaza is impossible because troops come under fire from hamas fighters in civilian buildings - military doctrine is you take the building out. The "civilian" deaths are becoming intolerable and what they're fighting now isn't the "original" hamas but all the new recruits. They're basically fighting what they've always fought: the general Palestinian population many of which are armed and many of which hate Israel.

The only way to destroy hamas is via a comprehensive peace deal - involving an internationally recognised Palestinian state co-existing with Israel.

We came to the same conclusion with the IRA. We were never going to destroy the IRA and every time we sent troops in to their areas stuff like bloody Sunday would happen.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
That was the largest displacement at the time. If you'd like me to list all the times Jews were displaced then I probably can, but I don't think you need me to.
Click to expand...

So other displacements that have happened since have the same right though right? And Palestine was not empty. People lived and owned that land legitamately.

scaramanga said:
The PLO declared Palestine a state and they're terrorists.
Click to expand...

If the PLO are terrorists then what are Likud?
 
Lost Mango said:
"They wanted to live where they were originally forced from" ...... :tearsofjoy: .... another unsubstantiated Bible story by the arch-atheist to justify his weak position. There is evidence of a Jewish population in Babylon and evidence of Jewish and Babylonian trading but little if any totally confirmed evidence of a forced exile or restriction on return.
Click to expand...

For an atheist this guy really does peddle religious zealotry on this topic like a true believer. Absolute levels of hypocrisy are astounding.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I don’t know anything about the background to this ( as you probably don’t either) but £9.5M over three years to help promote democracy does not feel like a bad thing and it’s a drop in the ocean to other schemes (so probably not enough money).
Click to expand...

The Boris Bridge..................
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I don’t know anything about the background to this ( as you probably don’t either) but £9.5M over three years to help promote democracy does not feel like a bad thing and it’s a drop in the ocean to other schemes (so probably not enough money).
Click to expand...
In Dr Congo
I defo reckon all that money goes to it's intended cause, not a corrupt country at all
 
markysimmo said:
In Dr Congo
I defo reckon all that money goes to it's intended cause, not a corrupt country at all
Click to expand...
Well if there is a need to promote democracy then it follows that there are issues with the current leadership. I would hope and expect we have processes in place to make sure the money is going where it is supposed to go but it’s a fair concern that it might not. As I say I don’t know anything about the country or this aid package, as I suspect most people commenting on it do not either.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Well if there is a need to promote democracy then it follows that there are issues with the current leadership. I would hope and expect we have processes in place to make sure the money is going where it is supposed to go but it’s a fair concern that it might not. As I say I don’t know anything about the country or this aid package, as I suspect most people commenting on it do not either.
Click to expand...
It goes further like most things. The US and UK have been working hard to achieve many things in the region which is evident in actions like the Nairobi Process (or Communique whatever you want to call it). Much of these donations are about solidifying relations and maintaining facetime and reach with these countries, there is a much bigger picture to play with it all than "why are we sending Condoms to Gaza..........no not that Gaza..........Who Gazza?"
 
US history in Congo:

The Congo War known outside the United States as the ‘Central African Wars’ was a series of interconnected conflicts spread across central Africa from the late 1950s to early 1970s. The phrase ‘Congo War’ refers specifically to the military involvement of the United States in the region from February 1964 to December 1968.

Beginning in the late 1950s, the Soviet Union had identified Africa, now in the throes of the chaos of decolonisation, as a fertile breeding ground for communist ideology. The Soviet Union envisioned the creation of a Marxist bloc stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. In a practical sense, this Marxist bloc would provide the Soviets with the raw materials and manpower they would need to sustain their isolated economy.

From 1958-1960, the Soviets tried to provide arms and training to the Mau-Mau insurgents fighting against British colonial rule in Kenya. Though the operation ultimately came too late to change the outcome of the war, the Soviets gained valuable knowledge of how insurgency conflicts in Africa could be organised and fought.

When, in the early 1960s, many African nations gained independence amid the withdrawal of the old European powers, the Soviets were quick to provide both military and political support to the new governments of these regions. Tanzania and Zambia quickly aligned themselves with the East as Western aid and recognition was slow and ineffectual.

These developments alarmed the colonial/ minority administrations in South Africa, (Southern) Rhodesia and Portuguese Angola/ Mocambique. Similarly, this caused the United States to adjust its view towards the continent. While the US prided itself on its anti-colonial routes, many US officials harboured real fears that the withdrawal of the colonial powers would provide the Soviets with an abundance of friends in the third world. Already in what had been French Indo-China, the US found itself being drawn into an insurgency conflict against communist backed guerrillas.

In both South-East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, the US feared a domino effect. The USA’s ultimate concern was that if Zambia and then Rhodesia were to fall to the Soviets, South Africa and its valuable deposits of Uranium, Platinum and Gold would be vulnerable to Soviet expansion.

Throughout the early 1960s, the US worked in vain with its European allies to design a ‘staggered’ approach to decolonisation but the colonial powers, still reeling from the Second World War, saw little option but to withdraw as quickly as possible.

When Democrat Lyndon B Johnson took power after Kennedy’s assassination, he found himself at a crossroads. Ultimately, Johnson wanted democratic majority governments in power in Africa but he did not want these democratic governments coming at the cost of expanding the Soviet sphere of influence.

Johnson was nervous to provide support to either Portugal (currently engaged in a colonial war in Angola and Mozambique), South Africa or Rhodesia. But at the fore of Johnson’s mind was the problem of the Congo. Arguably the country to suffer the most under colonial rule, the Congo was also experiencing one of the most chaotic periods of decolonisation and the Soviets were quick to notice.

Principally, the region of Katanga was quickly establishing itself as a semi-autonomous state within which the Soviets could establish a communist government.

After Kenya, the Soviets turned their attention to arming and training secessionist and insurgent groups in the region. By late 1963, there were very real fears in the US that the minority of European and American citizens in the Congo were at risk of being slaughtered by the Soviet backed rebels.

Realizing that indirect aid to the inefficient and unstable government in Leopoldville was not going to rectify the situation, Johnson reluctantly made the decision to deploy ground troops to the region on the 2nd of February 1964. These initial deployments were soon joined by small units from South Africa and Rhodesia.

Attempts were also made by the US to coordinate with Portuguese forces in Angola, but Johnson was loathe to openly support a colonial regime and cooperative operations were hamstrung.

Inexperienced in both counterinsurgency and bush conflict, initial US operations in 1964 went very poorly. Despite the widespread use of helicopters to transport ground forces, the US military often found they had immense trouble simply moving their forces around in the dense Congo bush. Malaria, Yellow Fever and Dysentery also began to plague various units. To compensate, the US quickly adopted a brute force approach as ground commanders requested more troops and more airpower to simply flatten the opposition.

This did not solve the problem as, when feeling overmatched by US airpower, many of the Katangese guerrillas simply retreated into neighbouring Zambia and Tanzania where they could receive fresh supplies and fresh training.

US soldiers also complained of poor living conditions, logistical problems and a complete inability to coordinate with local Congolese militia and defence units. In the months of June-September 1964, more US troops died of non-combat causes, including friendly fire, than through enemy action.

On the other end of the spectrum the joint South African/Rhodesia (which also included a number of native Australians) contingent possessed many veterans of the conflicts in Malaya and Kenya. As such, they faired better than their US counterparts and typically operated near the Zambian border where the territory was most familiar to their own. However, since this contingent never numbered more than 1,100 troops it could not have a serious impact on the course of the conflict.

In November 1964, the situation worsened significantly when a US attempt to rescue European hostages failed dramatically leading to the shootdown (and subsequent death) of US paratroops as well as the execution of all the hostages. The Soviets quickly seized on the debacle and the Katangese made a number of gains during the period of November – December 1964.

Fearing a public humiliation of the US military could be imminent, Johnson doubled down on his commitment of troops to the region and 1965 saw a dramatic swell of US men and equipment arrive in the Congo. Airstrikes relentlessly pounded the Congo jungle while ground forces aggressively patrolled troubled regions. During this period, insurgents began to operate in MPLA controlled areas of Angola and the US began to covertly assist the Portuguese.

However, in expanding support to Angola Johnson made a crucial error which would come to haunt him three years later.
Click to expand...
 
Lost Mango said:
So the UN 1947 partition that created Israel has no validity either then as it also delineated a Palestinian state? Israel was therefore, by your logic, the creation of terrorist activities by Zionists and illicit immigration?

And you continue to promote the lie that mandate Palestine was undeveloped and unoccupied. It had a population density greater than modern day Ireland and Australia and a number of other countries but we know facts and reality don't matter in your mind warp do they.


"They wanted to live where they were originally forced from" ...... :tearsofjoy: .... another unsubstantiated Bible story by the arch-atheist to justify his weak position. There is evidence of a Jewish population in Babylon and evidence of Jewish and Babylonian trading but little if any totally confirmed evidence of a forced exile or restriction on return.
Click to expand...
Have you been to Ireland or Australia?

Outside of the cities I'd describe both as empty too.

Israel was recognised as a state in 1948 (but I'm sure you knew that), Palestine self-declared as (but still isn't) one in 1988.
 
Last edited:
LutonSpurs said:
So other displacements that have happened since have the same right though right? And Palestine was not empty. People lived and owned that land legitamately.
Click to expand...
That would have to be judged on a case by case basis.

Mostly people travelled through the area, rather than being settled there. People can still travel through the area, although the barbaric treatment of Israeli civilians obviously makes that far more difficult.


LutonSpurs said:
If the PLO are terrorists then what are Likud?
Click to expand...
A political party.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
I've written this before but the goal of "destroying Hamas" via military intervention isn't realistic. This is not just in the context of criticising Israel and their policies but also in terms of the accusation that Israel is committing war crimes/genocide in gaza.

Hamas are not a military force or a nice neat organisation with political and military structures and "bases" you can target in a military operation to remain within "rules of warfare".

The lines between paramilitary organisations operating in gaza and the west bank and the "civilian" population are practically non-existant. Hamas are drawn from, part of and integrated with the civilian population and structures in Palestine. There are no hamas bases. The fighters sleep with their families in apartment blocks with other families. They use civilian buildings and infrastructure to have meetings and store equipment. Hospitals, municipal buildings, shops: they're all Hamas infrastructure.

One of the issues with the hostages is that when Hamas broke through the fences and invaded Israel a tonne of general "civilians" from gaza invaded behind them. It was these people that took part in a lot of the more egregious looting, raping, torture and killing of women, children and civilians. Basically, Hamas lost control of the situation. I suspect the plan was to go in and make a point and take hostages. They never intended to have world media report on children being beheaded, pregnant women having their stomachs cut open and non-Israeli foreign tourists taking part in a music festival being raped and killed. They never intended to illicit the response they did from Israel. Most of Hamas' "leadership" and many key allies such as Iran and Hezbollah have paid the price with their lives as it stands.

Hamas have struggled to find all the hostages many of whom were taken and being held by "civilians" or criminal gangs within gaza.

Even Israel have now decided that a sustained military campaign in gaza is impossible because troops come under fire from hamas fighters in civilian buildings - military doctrine is you take the building out. The "civilian" deaths are becoming intolerable and what they're fighting now isn't the "original" hamas but all the new recruits. They're basically fighting what they've always fought: the general Palestinian population many of which are armed and many of which hate Israel.

The only way to destroy hamas is via a comprehensive peace deal - involving an internationally recognised Palestinian state co-existing with Israel.

We came to the same conclusion with the IRA. We were never going to destroy the IRA and every time we sent troops in to their areas stuff like bloody Sunday would happen.
Click to expand...
If anything has been made clear since Oct 7th, it's that a 2 state solution will never be possible.
 
scaramanga said:
That would have to be judged on a case by case basis.

Mostly people travelled through the area, rather than being settled there. People can still travel through the area, although the barbaric treatment of Israeli civilians obviously makes that far more difficult.
Click to expand...
This is just not true. The people of Palestine were occupied in 1922 but had homes and land. You are straight lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back