Middle East Conflict

Ducado said:
So what was the problem before the Iranian revolution? You are ignoring the elephant in the room,

There are 2 solutions either annex all the Palestinian land and grant full citizenship and rights (I.e the same as Israelis) or give the Palestinians a viable state of their own

I don’t know why so many are missing it, arguing about history, who was there first etc, the fact is they either live side by side in a democratic state with equal rights or they live in separate states, you can keep bombing and waging war but until this is solved it’s going to continue
Click to expand...
No, totally agree with the intractability of the problem. Just speculating on the possibility of a secular Iran which would maybe be less inclined to bankroll terrorist groups such as Hamas
 
The blue phantom said:
This guy was on Sky last week when his words were twisted to make him look a ****. He's fuckin spot in again. Stood up sleeping fuckinhel.
Click to expand...
I've just checked his timeline on the day of the original Hamas attack. Full of justification and not a word or even hint of condemnation. I'd say he is a ****, and doesn't need Sky's help to show that he is.

Choose your sources more wisely mate.
 
Last edited:
blueparrot said:
It isn't new , the BBC has never described people as terrorists directly as explained very well here. Nothing to do with how many people in Europe happen to be muslim or any other religion for that matter.


"
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured.
But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
We don't take sides. We don't use loaded words like "evil" or "cowardly". We don't talk about "terrorists". And we're not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world's most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy.


www.bbc.co.uk

Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson

It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn, writes the BBC's World Affairs editor.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but I read 3 lines of that post by John Simpson and it's just utterly moronic and actually bizarre.

"Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys."

This is not true because you cannot approve of terrorists. In the eyes of the law Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, it would be completely factually correct for the UK state broadcaster to refer to them as such. What Hamas did last week was a terrorist attack by terrorists, there is no room for opinion because it's fact.

If the BBC lends an open opinion that Hamas are either good or bad then that is potentially unlawful because in UK law it is illegal to hold any view that agrees with or supports Hamas. There are therefore no 'good guys' when solely talking about Hamas.

Why did the BBC call the Manchester Arena bombing a terrorist attack?
 
halfcenturyup said:
IDF spokesman said it was most likely an IED? Others say it was most likely a missile strike.

www.ft.com

Did Israel bomb a civilian evacuation route in Gaza?

Experts say evidence suggests most likely cause was a missile
www.ft.com www.ft.com
Click to expand...
It's hard to know who or what to believe as usual but if you read that article he specifically rules out a bomb, as there's no crater and the bodies are intact, indicating shrapnel rather than explosives. That could have come from a Hamas rocket, a missile (and that could be an IDF missile) or an IED of some sort.

He also says that the roads were very quiet and questions the logic of an Israeli action when they were actively encouraging people to use that route.
 
inbetween said:
I'm sorry but I read 3 lines of that post by John Simpson and it's just utterly moronic and actually bizarre.

"Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys."

This is not true because you cannot approve of terrorists. In the eyes of the law Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, it would be completely factually correct for the UK state broadcaster to refer to them as such. What Hamas did last week was a terrorist attack by terrorists, there is no room for opinion because it's fact.

If the BBC lends an open opinion that Hamas are either good or bad then that is potentially unlawful because in UK law it is illegal to hold any view that agrees with or supports Hamas. There are therefore no 'good guys' when solely talking about Hamas.

Why did the BBC call the Manchester Arena bombing a terrorist attack?
Click to expand...

These are OFCOM rules so if you have an issue with it write to your MP.
 
MouldensChippy said:
Maybe you should have a look at what Palestinian TV puts out as kids programming to the children ?

Or you could even look into the UNRWA text books provided in the school's ?
Click to expand...

Every single time you post it’s basically to tell everyone that Israel is just doing what Hamas does, as if copying the actions of Islamic terrorists that murder innocents and are despised around the world is the standard Israel should be keeping to.
 
west didsblue said:
Before 1979 Iran and Israel were allies against a common enemy that had tried to destroy Israel on several occasions.
Click to expand...
But one could argue that getting into bed with what was a despotic regime was not good politically for Israel, and you can’t argue it wasn’t an equally despotic regime as the one currently in place

But I agree Iran has huge potential as a democratic state, they have resources and a young population
 
Ducado said:
But one could argue that getting into bed with what was a despotic regime was not good politically for Israel, and you can’t argue it wasn’t an equally despotic regime as the one currently in place

But I agree Iran has huge potential as a democratic state, they have resources and a young population
Click to expand...
And a sizeable part of that young population in Iran want to live a secular life under a secular law similar to what is permitted in Turkey.

IMG_4612.png

theconversation.com

Iran’s secular shift: new survey reveals huge changes in religious beliefs

A huge new online survey of Iranians reveals only 40% identify as Muslim.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
 
tel aviv city said:
hamas is werst then Isis! till IDF destroy them once end forever thers no chance to negotaition with palestian heads
the gaza citizens will be more then happy to live in peace with us -so listning to ask to live norh gaza in faver to both sides - HAMAS IS ISIS
Click to expand...
Part of the whole problem was the right wing government in Israel’s approach of Peace without peace negotiations, basically build walls and subjugate and brutalise the Palestinians, I mean who knew that eventually it was going to backfire and backfire massively

I mean when was the last Israeli PM who has genuinely said he was willing to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement ? The last one who got close was assassinated by an extreme right winger
 
Would it be too much for the Israeli hostages to be freed? Or would that have no impact on the current situation?

Hamas have the power here to stop this, yet they are seemingly bent on hell happening to their own people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top