• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel intercepts Gaza flotilla, says Hamas

bub said:
So as usual those who dare to point out that Israel does not care about international law are "anti-Israeli". And in this case it's the entire world. Gosh!

calimero.1239543982.gif
Click to expand...

What Apocalypse does not realize is that everyone quickly condemned this guy not too long ago:

dc6b4aae.jpg
 
CrazyMcCool said:
Yeah you are right sorry if my post came off like that.. I have a bad habbit of phailing to get ideas from me head onto paper/forums D:

What I ment is that Europe has no expirance with whats happening in Israel right now, ( all the rest was me being an idiot i appoligize)
Click to expand...
thanks

CrazyMcCool said:
they never had to deal with these kinds of events, and Israel is the only nation on earth to have this expirance with it.
I propose if any other europian nations were to be in Israel's shoes they would also be like that, the world just sees us as we are cause we are diff, cause we are the only ones in this situation :)

^
Click to expand...

This is true. Wheneve we colonised a country we had our own to return to. Where some of us stayed we frequently had problems, even to this day - Northern Ireland for one.

Israel is unique in that it is the only country I know of in the modern world who has colonised a country and does not have it's own to return to if the people, as they always do, rise up against that.

For that reason Israel has a stronger need than any other country to act with the utmost fairness to the indiginous population. This does not seem to be happening. (I am aware a tiny proportion of today's Israel is the indigenous population who previously lived harmounously alongside Muslims and Christians)

Israel is on a fine line as to whether she can find a way to make friends with the indiginious population or she will find herself eventually with one state.

Israel has not seemed to act in a very skillful way towards this, not obeying UN laws, giving people collective punishment and taking over their land.

Yes, Israel is the stronger force. Yes Israel to a large extent does seem to think she can do what she likes.....but..........................
 
Last edited:
Degreez said:
What Apocalypse does not realize is that everyone quickly condemned this guy not too long ago:

dc6b4aae.jpg
Click to expand...
:lol:
Please point out one similatry between Israel and NK thats facts not assumptions or personal views ^^
 
CrazyMcCool said:
:lol:
Please point out one similatry between Israel and NK thats facts not assumptions or personal views ^^
Click to expand...

Both are increasingly isolated on the international scene? :p
 
bub said:
Both are increasingly isolated on the international scene? :p
Click to expand...

Correct :lol:

Not that i am saying this is one also has mass propaganda :lol:

Like I said any europian nation in Israeli's shoes, would do thing just the same
 
Last edited:
bub said:
So as usual those who dare to point out that Israel does not care about international law are "anti-Israeli". And in this case it's the entire world. Gosh!

calimero.1239543982.gif
Click to expand...

Those who tell soldiers not to fire back when they are being shot at are not only anti-Israeli, but possess an inhuman hatred towards the Jewish state.

Those who condemn Israel before even checking the facts are clearly and absolutely motivated by a political agenda.
 
Degreez said:
What Apocalypse does not realize is that everyone quickly condemned this guy not too long ago:

dc6b4aae.jpg
Click to expand...

1) This guy was not condemned the same level Israel was.
There was no UN general assembly resolution made against him.

2) The facts seem to be against this guy, and in this case no evidence for an Israeli wrong-doing was presented so far, and the contrary is true.

And by the way if Israel would have done what he did it would already be nuked.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
Those who tell soldiers not to fire back when they are being shot at are not only anti-Israeli, but possess an inhuman hatred towards the Jewish state.

Those who condemn Israel before even checking the facts are clearly and absolutely motivated by a political agenda.
Click to expand...

Oh and did you understand the calimero stuff?
 
:lol:
31676_1407827510605_1079961739_1159681_2365081_n.jpg


Not really relevant but funny as hell :p
 
Apocalypse said:
Would you like to explain?
Click to expand...

I believed it was international but then I checked on wiki:

# The word "Calimero" passed into Portuguese, French and Slovene language usage to denote, "someone that is always complaining" or considers himself a victim. It is still occasionally heard and, as of 2009, remains widely understood [1]
# In the Netherlands and Belgium, Calimero complex, is used to denote someone who thinks the world is against him/her
Click to expand...

Calimero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I remember watching that TV show as a kid with the guy with the egg on his head lol

but I think its a good analogy, its different and no ones knows how its like to be diff, which is why Israel gets all the crap it does, cause its hard to be in anothers shoe, the same goes for Israel and Palestinians, but I think the government should be aware of this and actually try and have a diff mindset...Thats what I want from a politician to have a diff mindset so her can analyze it better.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
You know the famous line, "Just because you're a paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"?
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean they're after you neither :p

/checkmate :2razz:
 
bub said:
no one was killed on the rioter side, that was the point
Click to expand...

OOOOOOOOH! That the point? Well, I should then bone up on mind reading skills, because you said "NO CASUALTIES"

cas·u·al·ty   [kazh-oo-uhl-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1.
Military .
a.
a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined.
b.
casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion.
2.
one who is injured or killed in an accident: There were no casualties in the traffic accident.
3.
any person, group, thing, etc., that is harmed or destroyed as a result of some act or event: Their house was a casualty of the fire.
4.
a serious accident, esp. one involving bodily injury or death.


Casualty | Define Casualty at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...


Pay attention to what I highlighted here. Your take on things is interesting to say the least bub. I guess you have the right to reinvent words eh?


j-mac
 
bub said:
That doesn't mean they're after you neither :p

/checkmate :2razz:
Click to expand...

No, but claiming for paranoia doesn't cancel the suspicion.
 
j-mac said:
OOOOOOOOH! That the point? Well, I should then bone up on mind reading skills, because you said "NO CASUALTIES"




Pay attention to what I highlighted here. Your take on things is interesting to say the least bub. I guess you have the right to reinvent words eh?


j-mac
Click to expand...

You're arguing semantics but that does not change my point at all: my argument was that 126 French policemen were wounded (= these were very violent riots) and that they remained calm enough so that they did not kill anyone among the rioters.
 
bub said:
You're arguing semantics but that does not change my point at all: my argument was that 126 French policemen were wounded (= these were very violent riots) and that they remained calm enough so that they did not kill anyone among the rioters.
Click to expand...


Look bub, words mean things. When you start twisting them to suit your argument, then not only do you take your credibility and toss it out the window, but you cheapen the debate.

Now, you can say semantics all you want as a deflection to your being absolutely wrong, but those of us paying attention see it clearly.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Look bub, words mean things. When you start twisting them to suit your argument, then not only do you take your credibility and toss it out the window, but you cheapen the debate.

Now, you can say semantics all you want as a deflection to your being absolutely wrong, but those of us paying attention see it clearly.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Seeing you post from South Carolina, I assume your first language is English. That is not my case, and sometimes I don't use the exact words but I can assure you that I refered to "dead people on the rioters side", as any reasonable person would assume while reading my posts.

That being said, I still fail to see how this invalidates my argument: "126 French policemen were wounded (= these were very violent riots) and that they remained calm enough so that they did not kill anyone among the rioters.". Now when you compare with the respective casualty rate on the humanitarian ship, you can only deduct that the IDF has more than probably used a disproprtionate level of violence.

But if you prefer debating on semantics, then I suggest you to do it in Dutch.
 
Last edited:
bub said:
Seeing you post from South Carolina, I assume your first language is English. That's not my case, sometimes I don't use the exact words but I can assure you that I refered to "dead people on the rioters side", as any reasonable person would assume while reading my posts.

That being said, I still fail to see how this invalidates my argument: "126 French policemen were wounded (= these were very violent riots) and that they remained calm enough so that they did not kill anyone among the rioters."
Click to expand...

First cause they are Frnech :lol: ( just joking :wink: )
Second they are not highly trianed commandos, police are diff they are trained to just about never take out their guns, Commandos get trained to pull their guns a lot faster for the obvios reason of not losing a solider, also this situation is diff than the french riots.
 
bub said:
That being said, I still fail to see how this invalidates my argument: "126 French policemen were wounded (= these were very violent riots) and that they remained calm enough so that they did not kill anyone among the rioters.". Now when you compare with the respective casualty rate on the humanitarian ship, you can only deduct that the IDF has more than probably used a disproprtionate level of violence.
Click to expand...

You're comparing oranges and apples.
Those are not even remotely the same situations.
 
Apocalypse said:
1) This guy was not condemned the same level Israel was.
There was no UN general assembly resolution made against him.
Click to expand...
You're right, because he was condemned more. Calls for sanctions have already been heared. Where are the calls for sanctions on Israel?
Apocalypse said:
2) The facts seem to be against this guy, and in this case no evidence for an Israeli wrong-doing was presented so far, and the contrary is true.
Click to expand...
No evidence of any wrong-doing? I suggest going back a page or two and reread the posts regarding the legal opinions of the event. Stating there was no Israeli wrong doing is merely your opinion.
Apocalypse said:
And by the way if Israel would have done what he did it would already be nuked.
Click to expand...
If Israel had sunk which country's warship? It would be nuked by who? I don't really care for speculation based rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom