So by your logic, The UK government should have blockaded Northern Ireland during the 70s and the 80s to ensure the people of mainland Britain were protected? Absolute twaddle.

 

Spot on Grebo... And obviously Thatcher should have sent the Task Force over to the Republic after they were done with the Argies too going by Craig's logic.... -_-

 

And here is said quote that Bernard Butler was referring to....

 

http://www.biblestudytools.com/gnta/ezekie...Ezekiel+22:6-16

 

"All Israel's leaders trust in their own strength and commit murder. 7 None of you in the city honor your parents. You cheat foreigners and take advantage of widows and orphans. 8 You have no respect for the holy places, and you don't keep the Sabbath. 9 Some of your people tell lies about others in order to have them put to death. Some of them eat sacrifices offered to idols. Some are always satisfying their lusts. 10 Some of them sleep with their father's wife. Some force women to have intercourse with them during their period. 11 Some commit adultery, and others seduce their daughters-in-law or their half sisters. 12 Some of your people murder for pay. Some charge interest on the loans they make to other Israelites and get rich by taking advantage of them. They have forgotten me." The Sovereign Lord has spoken. 13 "I will bring my fist down on your robberies and murders. 14 Do you think you will have any courage left or have strength enough to lift your hand when I am finished with you? I, the Lord, have spoken, and I keep my word. 15 I will scatter your people to every country and nation and will put an end to your evil actions. 16 And so the other nations will dishonor you, but you will know that I am the Lord."

 

Gee, no wonder the Orthodox Jews dont believe in THIS particular section of the Bible...... Shows how hypocritical and two-faced the whole Zionist belief system is dunnit....? -_-

So by your logic, The UK government should have blockaded Northern Ireland during the 70s and the 80s to ensure the people of mainland Britain were protected? Absolute twaddle.

 

Northern Ireland was British territory and the mick's were British citizens so I fail to see your comparison there

Well, you were the one who brought up the Bible as a justification mate... So, tough sh!t if you dont like it being thrown back in your face..... -_-

 

I was responding to the ridiculous suggestion that I am a racist when my dislike of the Palestinians has absolutely nothing to do with their skin colour or religion

These "lefties" are trying to feed the people who are dying at the hands of Israel. Sorry Craig, but if you think it's right to deny these innocent people of food, medication and education because a select few are terrorists, then you're extremely twisted. Israel breaks international law time and time again. They have killed thousands of innocent civilians deliberately in the last few years. So yes, this ship should go to Gaza. I don't give a damn if it enters Gaza "illegally". Israel doesn't obey the law, so why should we?

 

Israel said that it will allow essential supplies, it allowed 15m tons of aid through a week prior to last weekend, all it wants to do Is inspect the cargos for weapons and so on, totally fair IMHO when the Palestinians are in armed conflict with Israel

Northern Ireland was British territory and the mick's were British citizens so I fail to see your comparison there

 

And this is the man who claims not to be a racist bigot... Nice terminology to use for a "oh, no I'm not a racist, honest guv"..... <_<

 

As a Scots/Irish person with the surname McMahon, I'm a tad offended by this tbh.... -_-

 

And the "Micks" are NOT British citizens you tool, they're IRISH that's the whole argument.... What, you think just because you invade or colonise someone then that means they have an automatic desire to become part of that foreign ideology which subjugated them....? Hmmm, that's gonna come as a surprise to the likes of Ghandi and Nehru. Or indeed De Gaulle..... :rolleyes:

Northern Ireland was British territory and the mick's were British citizens so I fail to see your comparison there

That is a quite unbelievable statement. Idiot.

That is a quite unbelievable statement. Idiot.

 

TBH mate, looking at it now, I think he's just deliberately trying to wind people up now seeing as how his pathetic arguments are being shot down in flames by application of actual LOGIC as opposed to idiotic platitudes based upon religious ideology and barely suppressed racism....

 

Israel said that it will allow essential supplies, it allowed 15m tons of aid through a week prior to last weekend, all it wants to do Is inspect the cargos for weapons and so on, totally fair IMHO when the Palestinians are in armed conflict with Israel

 

For the last time, it's AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW, regardless of whether you think it's fair!

I quite like what Mark Steel has to say about this:

 

 

It's time the Israeli government's PR team made the most of its talents, and became available for hire. Then whenever a nutcase marched into a shopping mall in somewhere like Wisconsin and gunned down a selection of passers-by, they could be on hand to tell the world's press "The gunman regrets the loss of life but did all he could to avoid violence." Then various governments would issue statements saying "All we know is a man went berserk with an AK 47, and next to him there's a pile of corpses, so until we know the facts we can't pass judgement on what took place." (N.B: this editorial was written a few hours before Derrick Bird's rampage)

 

 

To strengthen their case the Israelis have released a photo of the weapons they found on board, (which amount to some knives and tools and wooden sticks) that the naive might think you'd expect to find on any ship, but the more astute will recognise as exactly what you'd carry if you were planning to defeat the Israeli army. It's an armoury smaller than you'd find in the average toolshed in a garden in Cirencester, which goes to show the Israelis had better destroy Cirencester quickly as an essential act of self-defence.

 

It's a shame they weren't more imaginative, as they could have said "We also discovered a deadly barometer, a ship's compass, which could not only be frisbeed at someone's head but even had markings to help the assailant know which direction he was throwing it, and a set of binoculars that could easily be converted into a ray-gun."

 

That would be as logical as the statement from the Israeli PM's spokesman – "We made every possible effort to avoid this incident." Because the one tiny thing they forgot to do to avoid this incident was not send in armed militia from helicopters in the middle of the night and shoot people. I must be a natural at this sort of technique because I often go all day without climbing off a helicopter and shooting people, and I'm not even making every possible effort. Politicians and commentators worldwide repeat a version of this line. They're aware a nation has sent its militia to confront people carrying provisions for the desperate, in the process shooting several of them dead, and yet they angrily blame the dead ones. One typical headline yesterday read "Activists got what they wanted – confrontation." It's an attitude so deranged it deserves to be registered as a psychosis, something like "Reverse Slaughter Victim Confusion Syndrome".

 

Israel and its supporters claim that Viva Palestina, made up of people who collect the donated food, cement and items for providing basic amenities such as toilets, and transport them to Gaza, wanted the violence all along. Because presumably they must have been thinking "Hezbollah couldn't beat them, but that's because unlike us they didn't have a ballcock and several boxes of plum tomatoes".

 

One article told us the flotilla was full of "Thugs spoiling for a confrontation", and then accused them of being "Less about aid and more about PR. Indeed, on board was Swedish novelist Henning Mankell." So were they thugs or about PR? Did they have a thugs' section and a PR quarter, or did they all muck in, the novelist diverting the soldiers with his characterisation while the thugs attacked them with a lethal spirit level?

 

But some defenders of Israel are so blind to what happens in front of them there's nothing at all they wouldn't jump to defend. Israel could blow up a cats home and within five minutes they'd be yelling "How do we know the cats weren't smuggling semtex in their fur for Hamas?"

 

If this incident had been carried about by Iran, or anyone we were trying to portray as an enemy, so much condemnation would have been spewed out it would have created a vast cloud of outrage that airlines would be unable to fly through.

 

But as it's Israel, most governments offer a few diplomatic words that blame no one, but accept the deaths are "regrettable". They might as well have picked any random word from the dictionary, so the news would tell us "William Hague described the deaths as 'hexagonal'", and a statement from the US senate said "It's all very confusing. In future let's hope they make every effort to avoid a similar incident."

Edited June 5, 201015 yr by Danny

You've got to love Mark Steel :lol:

:lol: :lol:

 

Ezekiel? That would be New Testament yeah...? The Orthodox Jews dont belive in the NT, probably because of passages such as that which totally contradicts their whole flawed theory on Jews being "God's Chosen People!"..... :rolleyes:

 

I've not got much to add other than that I agree with pretty much everyone criticising Israel, but in regards to this point, I think Ezekiel is part of the Old Testament.

And this is the man who claims not to be a racist bigot... Nice terminology to use for a "oh, no I'm not a racist, honest guv"..... <_<

 

As a Scots/Irish person with the surname McMahon, I'm a tad offended by this tbh.... -_-

 

And the "Micks" are NOT British citizens you tool, they're IRISH that's the whole argument.... What, you think just because you invade or colonise someone then that means they have an automatic desire to become part of that foreign ideology which subjugated them....? Hmmm, that's gonna come as a surprise to the likes of Ghandi and Nehru. Or indeed De Gaulle..... :rolleyes:

 

How on earth is it racist ? Is referring to a Scotsman as a jock or a sweaty racist ? Terms I use regularly even with scots friends, is referring to an American as a yank racist ? are Americans who refer to us as limey's racist ? The idea that calling an Irishman a Mick is racist I'd beyond absurd, it's s term I have been using for 30 years, not remotely racist

TBH mate, looking at it now, I think he's just deliberately trying to wind people up now seeing as how his pathetic arguments are being shot down in flames by application of actual LOGIC as opposed to idiotic platitudes based upon religious ideology and barely suppressed racism....

 

I can assure you I have far better things to do with my time tbh especially as I have no desire to get a ban again, I back up everything I say and my reasoning for it even if you find my reasoning flawed, I am hardly Crazy Chris

Edited June 5, 201015 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

For the last time, it's AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW, regardless of whether you think it's fair!

 

And firing rockets into a nation's towns and cities isn't against international law ? and blowing up commuter buses in Tel Aviv is not against international law like the Palestinians have done many times ?.

 

Palestine's actions were a declaration of war and war is a dirty business so until Palestine start obeying international law I don't see why Israel should

Edited June 5, 201015 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

And firing rockets into a nation's towns and cities isn't against international law ? and blowing up commuter buses in Tel Aviv is not against international law like the Palestinians have done many times ?.

 

Palestine's actions were a declaration of war and war is a dirty business so until Palestine start obeying international law I don't see why Israel should

Israel have shown no regard whatsoever for international law for decades. Now at last the rest of the world are beginning to wake up to that fact. And if continuing to build in the occupied territories is not an act of war, then what exactly is it?

Israel have shown no regard whatsoever for international law for decades. Now at last the rest of the world are beginning to wake up to that fact. And if continuing to build in the occupied territories is not an act of war, then what exactly is it?

 

Even when Ariel Sharon was demolishing settlements on the West Bank etc the Palestinians were still blowing up buses and firing rockets, Sharon was a party to the Roadmap To Peace, when Sharon was incapacitated Olmert took a much tougher line with the Palestinians and Lebanon but Palestinian actions have been anthing but peaceful even when Israel was prepared to talk peace, you can't reason with terrorist scum

Even when Ariel Sharon was demolishing settlements on the West Bank etc the Palestinians were still blowing up buses and firing rockets, Sharon was a party to the Roadmap To Peace, when Sharon was incapacitated Olmert took a much tougher line with the Palestinians and Lebanon but Palestinian actions have been anthing but peaceful even when Israel was prepared to talk peace, you can't reason with terrorist scum

Demolishing settlements in one place while continuing to build them elsewhere. That was a unilateral renunciation of the so-called Roadmap, all too predictably supported by Bush and his puppet Blair.

 

Let's try a simple question. One even Chris might understand. If France occupied part of the UK, would the people in that part of the country be entitled to resist or should they just sit back and let it happen? Would anyone who resisted be "terrorist scum" to use your typically inflammatory phrase or would they be British heroes?

Israel said that it will allow essential supplies, it allowed 15m tons of aid through a week prior to last weekend, all it wants to do Is inspect the cargos for weapons and so on, totally fair IMHO when the Palestinians are in armed conflict with Israel

 

I have no problem with Israel inspecting aid as long as it gets there. However, I highly doubt that the majority of aid is delivered to Gaza. I do have a problem with Israel illegally boarding a ship in international waters and shooting people in the head.

How on earth is it racist ? Is referring to a Scotsman as a jock or a sweaty racist ? Terms I use regularly even with scots friends, is referring to an American as a yank racist ? are Americans who refer to us as limey's racist ? The idea that calling an Irishman a Mick is racist I'd beyond absurd, it's s term I have been using for 30 years, not remotely racist

That is completely idiotic. Of course that is a derogatory term for an Irishman. Your Scots mates may accept the term Jock but how many people who you do not know would accept being called that. Try going into a pub in Belfast and see how far you get calling everyone Mick. Would you like being called Yid? All completely unacceptable and derogatory.