Unlike LGM
Cant recall Skitzee mentioning LGM in a thread he hasn't posted in
Israel..wouldn't we do the same? part2
- Thread starter ellal
- Start date
Cant recall Skitzee mentioning LGM in a thread he hasn't posted in
Sponsored Links
But what purpose does it serve? you get the hump, he gets the hump the threads then turn to s... well you know.
L
lifesagasman
don't lose sleep over it. I won't.
Sponsored Links
The sensible thing to do would be to pull the plug on the raid as soon as it becomes apparent that it's all going pear-shaped. Otherwise things go from bad to worse rapidly, which is exactly what happened.
I think that any British led operation would have planned for this possible scenario and had a plan B in order to minimise the risk of life being lost.
The Israeli's are too used to getting their own way and riding roughshod over any challengers, by using superior firepower and overwhelming (and unnecessary) force. and as such aren't accustomed to 'backing off'.
- Joined
- 15 May 2008
- Messages
- 960
- Reaction score
- 109
- Country
when palestine was under the British mandate jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers they also smuggled shiploads of weapons and illegal immigrants , but the British didn't behave like the Israelies.
The zionists used murder and deceit to steal someone elses land if they want peace they should pack up and go back to their countries of origin, after all the British had to do it.
I concur. During the very short time that I've been on here, I've noticed and commented on how he seems to find it acceptable to slip in unnecessary insults. When I've pointed this out to him, I've been the recipient of a curious diatribe.
He should remember that this is an open site, visible to all. It is not a members only club.
Ooh i'm famous.
Just a quick point, when you accused me of being insulting to someone, the person who you were 'defending' told you that in no-way were they offended. I criticised your need to try and introduce 'offence' into a perfectly amiable debate. Thats all.
There has been a jewish population in what is now israel for a very long time. Yes, there were terrorist groups. There are terrorist groups in every disputed land in the world as far as I know.
This whole 'land stealing' thing is a bit of a myth though and doesn't really make sense. When does someone 'own' land and when do they not?
I mean...the land belonged to the ottoman empire before the british took over...
Closer to home, are we Normans? Angles? Saxons? Celts? Who stole the land from who? Is there a certain date that you would consider to be the time when ownership is decided?
L
lifesagasman
clearly, land can never be genuinely owned, as with all material objects. things/land may be used/occupied by people while they are alive, but you can't take it with you, so you never truly own it.
In which case the whole concept of 'land theft' does not exist.
We, as a species, still have the rule, if you are strong enough to keep it (or are friends with people strong enough to keep it), it is yours...but that is why we have rules of war to make sure soldiers kill soldiers and not civilians.
We, as a species, still have the rule, if you are strong enough to keep it (or are friends with people strong enough to keep it), it is yours...but that is why we have rules of war to make sure soldiers kill soldiers and not civilians.
L
lifesagasman
yep, the concept of land theft (and land ownership) is exactly that, a man-made concept
L
lifesagasman
as for soldiers only killing soldiers and not civilians, you would then have to define what exactly a soldier is. If all soldiers were to abide by the same rules, if you declare yourself to be a civilian and not a soldier, you are then free to do whatever you choose, unchallenged. clearly unworkable.
L
Lincsbodger
bearing in mind one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.......
The ownership of land was determined by war and combat, as has been the way for thousands of years......and latterly by commerce and payment.
The ownership of land was determined by war and combat, as has been the way for thousands of years......and latterly by commerce and payment.
L
Lincsbodger
We've had the conversation before.
'Rules of War' is a meaningless, laughable concept. Its hypocritical because having 'rules' is an attempt to 'civilise' war, and therefore make it acceptable. Secondly, War is not the opposite of Peace. War is the absence of civilisation, and in the absense of civilisation there are, by definition, no rules. War is the process of imposing ones will by force, it isnt a game of cricket where we can all be jolly decent chaps, and gentlemen.
So i reject the concept of 'rules of war' as utter pretentious ******.
They dont work anyway, over the last 200 years the ratio of civilians killed in any war to the number of soldiers killed is getting bigger and bigger. in 100 years time, no soldiers will be killed during wars, but civilian populations will be decimated.
Sponsored Links
