F-15 flies with only 1 wing

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Just to add to that, to accuse someone of being anti-semitic because they disagree with Israel's foreign policy is as dumb as accusing somone of being anti-white because they didn't like the apartheid in South Africa. I know for a fact there are Jews who disagree with Israel's actions, if that makes them anti-semitic then boy do they live in a world of confusion.
None of us are going to suddenly say "wow, it turns out I agree with you after all", and if the nature of the arguments is going to stoop as low as this then I see no point in continuing the thread. By all means, close it.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Yes and I am certain that every post here thus far has been neutral as far as race is concerned. What we are discussing is the conflict, the reasons for it and the ramifications of it.

Freddy, you have made many good points in this thread and I would like to see it continue but your last sentence was uncalled for and way below the belt

 

OK, guys, let's look at why I say I see anti-semitism on this site.

The IRA are looked at as murdering scumbags by the Brits, and not without cause. Since 1960, a total of 46 years, there have been around 1800 people killed by the IRA. (That is less than 40 people per year. That's approximately 1 every 9 days.) The British army has very many times dealt extremely harshly with the Irish as a whole because of the IRA. They have killed civilians and the Army authorities have flat out covered it up. It's a matter of official British army records that this happened.

Now, Islamic terrorists during the period of September 2000 to February 2006 have killed 1100+ Isrealis. (This is approximately 200 people per year. That's aproximately 2 every 3 days.) In approximately 1/9th of the time the terrorists have killed 61% of the total number killed by the IRA in 46 years, and the IRA death toll includes Irish civilians killed so the number of British deaths is less than the total.

So, let's take a look at how the IRA is viewed by the Brit's on this site and contrast that to how the terrorists killing Isreali's are viewed. When the deeds of the Islamic terrorists are brought up the response from the majority of the people on this site has been, "but the Isreali's". Why? Why not the same attitude towards any terrorists attacking Isreal as toward the IRA? They're all organizations that live and breath terror. Why don't the deeds of the Brits excuse the IRA? Look what the Brits did during the great potato famine where the British simply let the Irish starve to death when they could have fed them. In one year alone, 1846, the estimates for Irish deaths that could have rather easily been prevented except for bigotry toward the Irish are between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people. Isn't that as much cause for hate as what the Isreali's have supposedly done? The Isreali's were given their land by Britain. They have only taken territory when involved in a war not of their own choosing, and only when taking that land made their country much less vulnerable to attack by the enemies that surround here on all landed sides.

I hear sympathy towards the civilian Palestinians, and rightly so. But, the anger generated from that sympath is highly misdirected. The majority of Palestinian civilians who are killed or wounded are killed directly because the terror organizations deliberately build their fortifications and weapons caches in the more densely populated areas and then fight using civilians as shields. The Islamic terrorists deliberately put their own people at risk. Why? Who is responsible for that? The Isreali's? Don't make me laugh. Their only other choice is to do absolutely nothing about the terror attacks that hit their country constantly. Is that really an option? The British have historically never accepted guerilla/terror attacks against them in any of their occupations of other countries. Why the double standard with the Isaelis? They are doing nothing that Britian herself hasn't done many, many times over. If you think your country hasn't, then you need to study your own history.

Anyway, that's why I see anti-semitism on this site. I see a huge double standard where Israel is concerned. They must fight back because their national and ethnic survival is at stake, and their opponents deliberately use human shields and then blame Israel for those deaths. Any true sense of justice and moral responsibility says those who deliberately put the civilians in the line of fire are the ones responsible for the civilian deaths, but that's not what I hear from this site. Why are the Israelis blamed when the ones really responsible for the civilian deaths are the terror organizations?

I have even read here where Israel is blamed for firing on people firing at them because the terrorists infiltrated into a UN position during the middle of a firefight. I find this incredible. The Israeli's are supposed to just take fire and not fight back? What kind of nonsense is that? The terrorists are the ones who caused the UN troops to be in the line of fire, not the Israelis. Would you really expect British troops to just take fire and get killed because the people they are fighting fight from the middle of a UN position? I very much doubt it.

 

Oops. I have one factual mistake in my post just above. The death toll in Ireland was over a 5 year period, not a one year period. It went from 1846 through 1850.

 

This is going to be my last post on this thread. I want to point out Freddy, that whatever your arguments are for double standards, being anti-Israeli is not the same as anti-semitism unless you are either claiming that (a) all Jews are Israeli or (b) all Jews agree with Israel's actions - I know (a) is not true, and as I stated earlier, there are at least some Jews who are anti-Israeli. To quote one British Jew who wrote a letter to a magazine a couple of years ago, and has always stuck in my mind, "I am tired of Israel dragging the good name of my religion through Palestinian blood..."

For someone to claim, as you are here that people are racist because they don't agree with your views on a NATION'S actions - not the actions of an entire religion/race - is scraping the bottom of the barrel and frankly makes me sick.

 

Ummm.... Sorry you're so offended. I would like to point out though that Israel is a NATION of JEWS as Jews are both a race and a religion. And, a double standard has been applied by many here. There is one standard applied to the IRA and its actions, and another standard applied to the actions of the Islamic terrorists toward Israel. One terrorist s seen sympathetically and the other terrorist with no sympathy at all while both operate under exactly the same principles. The only difference between the two are their targets, and that's why I see it as prejudice.

 

Freddy, wasn't it you yourself that said that the IRA is a completely different situation?

Anyway, no offence Freddy, but that is wholly irrelevant. No-one has stood here and said that any terrorists are right to kill people, and for you to claim otherwise, would be false. And as far as potato famines. If you are suggesting british people are bigots because of something that happened over 150 years ago, then there is something seriously wrong. I honestly wonder how long it would be until slavery is brought up.

In my opinion, more people are being killed than they should be, because Israel do seem to show a lack of restraint in some of their attacks. This isn't just my opinion, but the opinion of the Red cross and the UN. Were the terrorists in the back of the Ambulances that were bombed? How about in the empty buildings that Israel have been arbritrarily been knocking down in their 'tit-for-tat' ten for one missile strike?

Israel don't seem wholly interested in getting rid of Hezbollah, sure, it is the main aim, but they also seem interested in bringing the whole country, including the civilians, to their knees. Bombing the International airport at the beggining of their campaign is just evidence of this.

I know my history well enough Freddy, and your constant insistance that 'If you think your country hasn't, then you need to study your own history.' is quite frustrating. Just because our country has done similar things in the past does not mean we would have agreed with those actions either. To assume that because something happened in out countries history means we agree with what happened, is plainly absurd.
It feels like you think that the decisions we are making are wrong because we don't know the facts. This isn't the case, the case is that we know the facts, but disagree with you.

Frankly Freddy, there isn't a double standard going on. In my opinion, quoting some potato famine, the IRA, and the History of the UK don't go anywhere near explaining how you can accuse peoples views of anti-smemtism, and I find you continuance of asserting that they are, absurd. What is happening in Israel is happening in Israel, and although there are comparisons to various other events in history, it is not an exact replica of anything.

It is not racist to disagree with a countries actions, no matter if that country is wholly populated with one religious group.

 

And? Does it mean we can't disagree with anything that Israel does because Israel is populated with Jews and therefore to disagree with them is are racist? Seriously, ignore the IRA, why bring others into it when the situations are not the same. And anyway, no-one has ever said that Hezbollah are right to do what they are, so your insistance that we don't feel as strongly against the forms of terrorism against Israel are really trying to put words in our mouth to strengthen an otherwise weak arguement.

No comment.... as I think I've answered this question 3 times now. (All since you were last on, so you won't have seen the replies... yet. )

 

Before I'm accused of it by someone else, yes I know I said I wasn't going to post here again, yes I'm a hypocrite etc. etc. However, the statement you've just made is a humdinger. There is no such thing as a race of Jews any more than there is a race of British people or American people. Before I am branded an anti-semitic once again for this statement, allow me to quote two sources at quite different ends of the spectrum:

The Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem

So, by disagreeing with Israel's stance can be nothing whatsoever to do with being racist. And as I said before, you can't level the more specific charge of anti-semitism at anyone unless ALL jews were Israeli, which of course, they are not.

 

I suppose all this is my fault. I made one small statement that reflected my beliefs. It wasn't my intention to start a major debate.

 

And you couldn't even if all jews were Isaeli and vice versa, because condemning a country's actions, regardless of its inhabitants, is hardly racist.

Anyway FF, about your statistics of the Israeli dead - did you bother to check how many people the Israelis killed during that time? Because your "statistic" pales in comparison.

Here is the ratio between simply the Palestinians killed vs the Israelis killed: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

 

No no no Trip, don't blame yourself. There's nothing wrong a good old bit of debating. When I made my comments about not bringing religion into it, it was because I genuinely think there is no such thing as a calm and reasoned debate between people of different faiths. However, a debate on the actual actions of Israel (not the "divine inspriration" behind them) shouldn't get too much out of hand as, AFAIK, no one here is Israeli (or Lebanese). So in theory, we are all disinterested third-parties. Obviously, Freddy feels very strongly about his position (we all do, I'm sure) and I've defended him on other threads for having his own opinion however much other people don't like them. But to start throwing around claims of anti-semitism is not only an opinion, it's an insult to the people he is levelling these charges at, and that is not acceptable.

 

ah nvm

 

I don't have the time to respond to every post so I'll just create one post and try to answer the concepts. I will do that by asking you to put yourself into the Israeli governments shoes for a while and consider what you might do if facing the same threat in Britain.

Just what do you consider to be a valid response to 200 civilian deaths a year to terrorism? Think about what the response in Britain would have been if the IRA had killed people at a rate 6 times greater than they actually did and if the IRA had as their stated goal the entire destruction of Britain and all British people. If the IRA had killed people at the rate the terrorists have been killing Israelis the IRA would have killed more than 11,000 civilians so let's say that in 46 years that 11,000 British citizens had died. And, let's put this in other relevant perspectives too. Let's say the IRA has artillery, tanks, rockets, well trained soldiers, hundreds of millions of dollars of funding, countries willing to resupply all the armaments used in the IRA's fight with Britain, and the IRA's weapon are capable of reaching large civilian population centers. Add to that Britain is now a country that has land on three sides, and those landed borders all have nations that are dedicated to the death of Britain.

Think about this and think about what kind of response you would consider to be valid from your government. Now, remember that your response, if it is to be consistent with your stand towards Israel, must exclude the possibility of civilians dying and any collateral damage. It doesn't matter that British civilians are dying at the rate of more than 200 a year and that your enemy has deployed an army among civilians. You must make sure that you don't destroy his resupply lines, or kill any of the civilian popluation he has integrated his armed forces into. You must also not destroy any infrastructure he has used, or can use, in his fight against you. Now let's see how you will fight terrorism on the scale the Israeli government is having to fight it under the same limitations you have placed on the Israelis.

 

uhhh guyz i think we should just stick to certification and technical talk ... though i can see wot ffreeloader is trying to say, but it still doesnt justify bombing a whole country for that, surely there might be some other ways of solving this problem than dropping bombs through jets on civilians...

EDIT: oops i forgot to read the last post by ffreeloader!

 

Alright, folks. Let's all just take a deep breath ... and chill. In any forum, debates are a good way to flesh out the members, and it provides interesting discourse. This one is even more interesting because of the majority of the userbase is across the big pond (from me!). Heated discussion is normal, and can be tempered with a bit of humility -- which we all need from time to time.

Frankly, the idea of blanket-labeling is a mistake -- in any case. Equating anti-semitism with people questioning Isreal's actions is unfair. Although I understand the tactics that Hizbollah use are morally corrupt, the reason Isreal is (by comparison) on the high ground is largely due to the incredible restraint they have historically shown in these situations. Have they gone too far? I think yes, but not unduly so. Knowing Isreal's history, and the overwhelming odds of their apparent survival, I'm not so certain that they even have a choice. Still, does that make me, or anyone here, anti-semitic? Nope, not one bit. The only folks who are anti-semitic, in this conflict, are the millions of people that believe Isreal (and it's people) should not be allowed to exist. To this, I believe, we can all agree.

Furthermore, a parallel to this would be calling someone un-American for disagreeing with our nation's foreign policy (or any other policies). While I love this country (patriotism), I do *not* agree with every action we have made (that's nationalism). Consequently, labeling the majority of the forum anti-semitic, just because they question the motives of Isreal, is ludicrous (here would be a great place for a bit of humility). Nobody is above reproach, period, except for God. To those that are good by nature, often times they are scrutinized even more. In Isreal's case, they are held to a higher standard, and Hizbollah is capitalizing on what looks to be a very desperate situation, by acting the way Freddy has described.

As for religion being thrown around as the culprit, bear in mind that these values are from the minds of man. Throwing around the word God should never legitimize victimization and murder -- these zealots are doing man's work, not God's. To create a scapegoat is not a justified reason, it's an excuse to exercise an agenda without accountability. This is what terrorists do. That, above all else, is morally corrupt and despicable.