It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israel. Why? I Don't Get It.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Wait a min? They get hit by a suicide bomber, and they should do nothing? Why do you people hate Jews so much? That's all it can be, you justify your comments by saying I don't have anything against the Jews. Then you proceed to almost wish them to extinction. It don't really make a difference who done what first. It's time to sit all of the bullies down and tell them enough is enough. It's not just Israel either, any sane person would see that. It's the whole region, it must be something in the water?




posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700


she is punished every single time a suicide bomber hits a bus, or a rocket hits an apartment complex, or it's citizens are kidnapped. just because there are no sanctions against israel for mistakes it has made in combat of cowards hiding behind civilians, doesnt mean she isnt punished.


Yeah yeah yeah hiding behind civilians excuse is a bit tiring.Too bad the civilians were in bed 1km away from the freedom fighters which proves your outrageous theory incorrect. Keep using that excuse though because people are catching on to the obvous irrelevance which helps the Palestinians a lot.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Too bad the civilians were in bed 1km away from the freedom fighters which proves your outrageous theory incorrect.


so terrorists who intentionally target civilians are freedom fighters as long as it's jews they are killing? that's pretty much all i need to know about you.....and that kind of attitude is pretty much why the violence continues and will continue until there is no one left in the ME to kill or be killed.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   

posted by stumason

posted by ....??? For sure they knew. British intelligence as early as 1941 had a complete view of the nazi's plans of "Vernichtung", extermination. They followed the build up of Auschwitz and the whole logistic and industrial complex involved, IG Farben developing Cyklon-B, the laying out of railtracks to make it an efficient machine.

They could very easy early on have hindered or seriously delayed those plans. But the Brits did nothing.

As to why, one has to remember Britain by tradition and history has been one of the most anti-semitic countries in the world. Also, just prior to WW2, in 1936 Edward VIII gave up the throne, officially because of love to a divorced American woman, Mrs. Simpson, who according to FBI reports had another loveaffair with the German ambassador to Britain, von Ribbentrop, a top nazi soon to become Foreign Minister of Germany. But Edward himself was widely known for his pre-war nazi sympathies.

A sidestep to show that British admiration for the ideology of Hitler went far up in the ruling classes. So of course they didn't bomb IG Farben or the railroads to Auschwitz, never once they did. Instead they killed hundred of thousands of innocent civilians in the firestorm of Dresden, a city without the slightest strategic or logistic value ...or those of Hamburg, Hannover and Bremen, the strongholds of anti nazi resistance in Germany. Places where Hitler never once did hold a speech or any massrally.


Errr, "Speakeroftruth", let's correct some glaring inaccuracies there.

ERROR, Err, stumason, Speaker didn't post the above. I did.

While I'll let you get away with calling Hamburg an industrial city, I must object that label to be put on Dresden. The only industries there where small home works, producing fine instruments like watches and optical devicies. Zeiss Ikon among others had their base in Dresden. Maybe the allied didn't want the Germans to take any more photoes.

Dresden was a cultural pearl of baroque humanism, one of the finest examples Europe ever came up with. It influenced all thinking of mainland Europe. Maybe that's why Churchill wanted to inflict so much suffering on something Britain never truely perceived - or it might just have been a lack in his education.

Fact is that Dresden February 1945 was a hub for refugees fleeing the fighting in the East. Conservative estimates set it at 200.000 believed to have taken shelter there. Add to that the 600.000 + regular inhabitants, an unknown number of troops retreating from the front of approaching Russians, and a considerabel number of prisoners of war held there, because it was considered safe. All in all it amounts to something close to one million people subject to the terror bombing of Dresden.

There was no valid reason but terror. Some might claim it being a railroad junction it was a legitimate target, but please note the railyards prior to February 13-15 1945, had been bombed twice, in October 44 and again in January 45. Only excuse left was terror. Which this statement so clearly and exorbitant shows.


...two days after the raids, British Air Commodore Grierson told journalists
"First of all they [Dresden and similar towns] are the centres to which evacuees are being moved. They are centres of communications through which traffic is moving across to the Russian Front, and from the Western Front to the East, and they are sufficiently close to the Russian Front for the Russians to continue the successful prosecution of their battle. I think these three reasons probably cover the bombing."
One of the journalists asked whether the principal aim of bombing of Dresden would be to cause confusion among the refugees or to blast communications carrying military supplies. Grierson answered that the primary aim was communications to prevent them moving military supplies, and to stop movement in all directions if possible. He then added in an offhand remark that the raid also helped destroying "what is left of German morale"

Oh, what a stiffer upperlip remark - "break their morale", rule number one for empire builders. (Now you see it backlashes.)

The suffering and the horrors untold, the fact remains that this totally unnessacary excersise in breaking morales did cost an unknown number of lives, estimated from 60.000 to 500.000. Britain certainly rules. This glorious deed - in my opinion - puts Churchill as a war criminal equal to Hitler.

To prevent argues what the Brits suffered, let me just remind you the worst single airraid on the British Isles was that of Coventry, a legitimate target of war, "only" costing 1236 lives. Yes, I know about "the Blitz", all together it took 43.000 lives.

Compare that to the two nights of firestorm in Dresden.

Finally let me say, I'm not German but from a neighbouring country, where RAF used to drop their unused bombs before returning home cross the North Sea. Somehow they often managed to drop them on our cities. Also, I'm old enough to have seen the damage inflicted on Germany. Still ten years after the end of the war Hamburg was nothing but a heap of rubble with no building beyond one storey and with cleared passages for roads.

But Montgomery was our hero when I was a kid.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   
My apologies, I got the wrong name





While I'll let you get away with calling Hamburg an industrial city, I must object that label to be put on Dresden. The only industries there where small home works, producing fine instruments like watches and optical devicies. Zeiss Ikon among others had their base in Dresden. Maybe the allied didn't want the Germans to take any more photoes.


You said it yourself. Zeiss Ikon made optical devices. What do you think these were used for? They were primarily fed into the production of sights for AA guns and Tanks. What you also neglect to mention is that there was also a significant hydrogenation plant used for making artficial fuel for German tanks in Dresden. Then there is the very significant development of the German High Comman declaring Dresden as a key defensive point against the rapidly advancing Red Army. Dresden was being used as a mustering point for forces preparing to face off against the Russians.

Need any more reasons?

I might add, that the actual firestorm was NOT a desired affect. It was combination of perfect weather, unusually accurate bombing and a distinct lack of AA cover over Dresden as most of it had been moved away to other locations. The huge loss of life (est. between 25,000-40,000) was due to the populace of Dresden ignoring, for several years, orders to evacuate children and non-essentials to the country, like every other city. These combinations allowed the cirumstances surrounding the firestorm and subsequent casualty count to arise.

Needless to say, the loss of life was terrible. But, Dresden was far from the sleepy, picturesque city you portray it as.

EDIT: To add, sorry for going off topic.

May I suggest if you want to discuss this further, you start a new thread. i'll happily debate the events of WW2 with you there...

[edit on 11/11/06 by stumason]



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
so terrorists who intentionally target civilians are freedom fighters as long as it's jews they are killing? that's pretty much all i need to know about you.....and that kind of attitude is pretty much why the violence continues and will continue until there is no one left in the ME to kill or be killed.


Maronite Christians are descendant of Phoenicians.
My ancestors have been in the Middle East in Lebanon for over 4000 years...we won't be going anywhere anytime soon.
You have absolutely no clue about the ME and more then likely no connection to the ME unless its a religious connection of some sort. Your opinion of me is totally irrelevant and just seeing what you type here is enough to tell me you have no clue as to what time it is. Im just glad there are others who see the injustice and place their religious beliefs aside. Once we can get a balanced justice thats when the killing will stop, but until then, you are right, the Palestinians will continue to punish the Israelis in their own way just like the Jews did to the Brits in order to gain their freedom and just like we did to the Brits to gain our own Independance
in the USA and the Myriads of other peoples/civilizations wanting to gain freedom in the past.

Had the Brits held on to their mandate till this time, you would be calling the Jews under their authority freedom fighters too as Im sure they would have also continued their attacks on Great Britain to this day. The Brits were smart and knew what they were doing was wrong and pulled out. Israel is a little slower it seems to get the hint they were giving themselves at one time.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Kind of explains why Israel is always the bad guy, while terrorist do the same thing Israel does is always good. Knowing about someones background can often lead to a good insight as to why they believe what they believe.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Hamburg did have a strategic role as it did have sub pens according to an 77 German-American lady who was there during the bombings. Her story of the bombings were trully horrible, as are the pictures she has, but even she understood why they were targeted.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Kind of explains why Israel is always the bad guy, while terrorist do the same thing Israel does is always good. Knowing about someones background can often lead to a good insight as to why they believe what they believe.


You know you contradict yourself. You say the word terrorist for Palestinians and at the same time you admit Israel does the same things, but you won't refer to IDF/IAF as a terrorist group. Why is that? Its either you think they are better and they do not do the same things that terrorists do, OR you think they are the same and they should be classed the same and treated the same. You cannot say they do the same thing and treat them better. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Kind of explains why Israel is always the bad guy, while terrorist do the same thing Israel does is always good. Knowing about someones background can often lead to a good insight as to why they believe what they believe.


Nice hypocrasy and double standards on display there. They do the same but only one is a terrorist? Just because they are Israeli that makes it ok, does it?



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Israel is a nation that conducts its self in a terroristic fashion (sometimes) while sometimes responding in understandable ways, such as they get bombed they bomb the bomber. When they chase down ambulances or bomb entire neighbor hoods, they do it to scare people, or flying over peoples houses causing a sonic boom, that is terroristic in nature. to cause terror.

Palestinians are people. The people, whom I refer to as Palestinians in general (as I refer to Israelis IDF and Israel instead of IDF) as terrorist because their actions 1. do not target military structure or personnel 2. where conducting them selves as a militia at war before elected into office, and while not being given orders from within the government they still act in a fashion that can be described as terrorist in nature. When Hammas receives orders from the president to attack such and such at this time at this place, then it is an army at war, but more often then not they act on their commanders words and the president has to condemn their actions.

Both groups commit terroristic acts, but Israel is more or less doing it from within the government (pilots cannot choose themselves to do those sonic booms, they have a structured chain of command) and there fore are simply bad at war. They do acts that are more then questionable.

Palestinians (hammas and the other "freedom" fighters" do NOT act in the best interest of their people and are not sanctioned by the government, it is anarchy over there, no government has control over the entire situation .. so a militia that blows them selves up in a crowded market is a terrorist. Fatah used to blow up buses as well.. but that was an act of war sanctioned by the government. It was a terrorist act, because its entire purpose was to inflict terror but it was conducted by an army.

Such as Hezbollah, they are not a terrorist organization, though some members commit acts on their own (no enough discipline within the ranks) and their actions are terroristic in nature.. because they do not attack the IDF (unless it is a street to street battle). Granted in the Israeli Lebanese war last July they tried to hit IDF fortifications and infrastructure with the rockets, but their technology pretty much sucked so bad that anything they aimed at was safe, anything around it was not. Then they gave up and simply pointed them into a radiance to hit anything at all instead of nothing at all.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
umm, i'm afraid i have to agree with everyone else rockpuck....that's quite the double standard. here's my definition of a terrorist: anyone who intentionally targets civilians. i'm sorry, but errant bombs do not count.....they are simply a tragic part of any combat.


Originally posted by ThePieMaN
Maronite Christians are descendant of Phoenicians.
My ancestors have been in the Middle East in Lebanon for over 4000 years...we won't be going anywhere anytime soon.


well thank you for the history lesson, but that had absolutely nothing to do with the post you quoted from me. maronite christians are pretty much solely located in lebanon. the terrorists in question were palestinian, and they were muslim.



You have absolutely no clue about the ME and more then likely no connection to the ME unless its a religious connection of some sort.


oh yes, here we go again with the "you couldnt possibly know anything about our plight" crap. seems to be a common tactic among those who cant come up with a legitimate response.



Your opinion of me is totally irrelevant...


it's quite relevant to the topic, considering your overwhelming bias against jews (which is actually kind of funny considering that you claim to be a christian, and yet you quite obviously hate the people from whom our lord and saviour came from.....he was a jewish carpenter, you know).



and just seeing what you type here is enough to tell me you have no clue as to what time it is.


11:35 eastern standard time.



Im just glad there are others who see the injustice and place their religious beliefs aside.


you mean, of course, those who havent actually researched the question, and therefore blindly believe all of the propaganda you spit out.



Had the Brits held on to their mandate till this time, you would be calling the Jews under their authority freedom fighters too as Im sure they would have also continued their attacks on Great Britain to this day.


only the ones attacking legitimate military targets. those intentionally attacking civilians are terrorists, regardless of what faith they practice.



The Brits were smart and knew what they were doing was wrong and pulled out.


umm, no. with all the damage the brits did, not only in the holy land, but in iraq as well, they did not run. they turned the area over to the UN, who attempted to create the states of israel and palestine, but of course we discussed that already.



Israel is a little slower it seems to get the hint they were giving themselves at one time.


what hint is that? leave palestinian territory? they did that. what did they get for it? more terrorist attacks. what did the palestinians do when israel left? destroy the place, including every single synagogue in the area. how exactly do you negotiate with people like that?

no, the only thing that would satisfy you is for israel to no longer exist, and in its place one big palestinian state. and do you really think that would solve the problem? as i mentioned before, the hate and violence will continue regardless of who holds the high ground. 3000 years and counting.








posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
While I agree with a lot of what you say Snafu, Israel DOES intentionally target civilians. Not all the time, and the latest barrage of shells that killed a family may not have been on purpose, but Israel does commit terrorist acts while functioning as an organized army (which the other name for that is war crime) such as blow up airports, blow up beach side resorts, blow up hospitals, blow up hezbollah office buildings and the entire neighborhood around it, blow up ambulances (there where stories that helicopters literally chased them down) preventing humanitarian supplies from reaching civilians (because they blew up roads and any moving vehicle) targeting for assassination of civilian targets, whether that is a key political figure or a lawyer or someone who talks to loudly, preventing international foreign aid to humanitarian led missions within the Gaza territory, low flying sonic booms over residential neighborhoods on the west bank.

These are not actions against an army but civilians, now I would say that Hezbollah and Palestine did create the atmosphere that caused Israel to react so strongly, I would not say that everything that happens over there is an unintentional down side to war, but a more strategic motive to cause fear and disorder within the territory for the political leaders to try and manage.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Rockpuck they are doing nothing different from when things first started in the 1920's where Stern/Irgun/Hagganah would go to towns and murder people to scare them into leaving. The time period and the weapons used are just different thats all, and their government is legitimized now. They came to the ME with plenty of money from Europe & America with plenty of firepower, legal knowledge, and a knowledge of diplomacy (Which none of the Arab nations had at the time) and the Palestinians were fresh from being under Ottoman rule. The Palestinians did not make them that way, they have always been that way. Look it up in your bible. They wiped out an entire race of Caananite people when they first went to Israel, they wiped out every last man, woman and child because God told them so.
Half of their country believes that to be true once again and the other half just take advantage of that fact.


What god would tell people to wipe out an entire race...I don't think that was my God speaking.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Lombozo, if you'd like a different historical view, rent "The Chosen", a 1981 Robby Benson movie with Rod Steiger as his strict rabbi father:


There is a Jewish-inspired pathos to this movie that is difficult to describe, but very moving to watch. The acting is great, and the writing is unparalleled.

IMDB


This is the film that showed me that there are Jewish sects with differing ideas of what a nation of Israel should be.

Otherwise the best answer to your question is very simple yet very horrifying and complex: The Holocaust.

The Arabs didn't perpetrate that crime, but they are paying the price. Some can accept that (it was only desert anyhow), but some will never. Not as forgiving I suppose as other people who have had their homes taken away.

But back to the movie, watch it and you'll see that the Hebrews themselves are divided by zionist/anti-zionists standards. And you'll see another dimension to the division of attitudes within Israel itself.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
The bottomline why I support Israel over any of their enemies is because those enemies are OUR enemies too. And it's NOT simply because with support Israel. The ones that are constantly fighting Israel are same ones that refuse diplomacy, the same ones that believe in the Jihadist movement against Western civilization. They wish to turn the entire middle-east into an Islamic state and Israel is getting in their way. Eventually these people will want to go to Europe, Australia and the United States to take their claims by force! Israel is an essential ally against the war on terror. I support them whole-heartedly and am more than happy to support them!



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

What god would tell people to wipe out an entire race...I don't think that was my God speaking.

Well said Pie, not mine either.

That's the problem with monoteism, everyone can claim their god to be the only right one. Though in the true concept of the word is shouldn't matter whatever name is applied to Him. But different times, different people take the perception to wherever it suits their need.

I remember in early 2003 during the push towards Baghdad, heavy fighting was reported round Nasiriyah as the birthplace of the prophet Ibrahim!!

HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD KNOW they were talking about Abraham, father of Hagar and Isac, respectively the outspring of islamic and judaic faith. Not many, I think.

At the extreems things become their opposites.



posted on Nov, 12 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Hmmm... I think this thread could use an infusion of historical perspective.

Here you will find the text of a letter that Lord Montague, the sole Jewish cabinet member, wrote in the run-up to the 1917 Balfour declaration.

He described the move as "anti-Semitic". Yes, this brave man was prepared to say that the setting up of a Jewish state was anti-Semitic. (Those of you with an eye for conspiracy theories will note that one of the prime movers in this was Lord Rothschild, btw.)

Here are a few of the arguments I find both cogent and prescient:


This nation will presumably be formed of Jewish Russians, Jewish Englishmen, Jewish Roumanians, Jewish Bulgarians, and Jewish citizens of all nations - survivors or relations of those who have fought or laid down their lives for the different countries which I have mentioned, at a time when the three years that they have lived through have united their outlook and thought more closely than ever with the countries of which they are citizens.

Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom. If a Jewish Englishman sets his eyes on the Mount of Olives and longs for the day when he will shake British soil from his shoes and go back to agricultural pursuits in Palestine, he has always seemed to me to have acknowledged aims inconsistent with British citizenship and to have admitted that he is unfit for a share in public life in Great Britain, or to be treated as an Englishman. I have always understood that those who indulged in this creed were largely animated by the restrictions upon and refusal of liberty to Jews in Russia. But at the very time when these Jews have been acknowledged as Jewish Russians and given all liberties, it seems to be inconceivable that Zionism should be officially recognised by the British Government, and that Mr. Balfour should be authorized to say that Palestine was to be reconstituted as the "national home of the Jewish people". I do not know what this involves, but I assume that it means that Mahommedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test.


Montague explicity acknowledges anti-Semitism in British life, but argues this:


I claim that the lives that British Jews have led, that the aims that they have had before them, that the part that they have played in our public life and our public institutions, have entitled them to be regarded, not as British Jews, but as Jewish
Britons. I would willingly disfranchise every Zionist. I would be almost tempted to proscribe the Zionist organisation as illegal and against the national interest. But I would ask of a British Government sufficient tolerance to refuse a conclusion which makes aliens and foreigners by implication, if not at once by law, of all their Jewish fellow-citizens.

3. I deny that Palestine is to-day associated with the Jews or properly to be regarded as a fit place for them to live in. The Ten Commandments were delivered to the Jews on Sinai. It is quite true that Palestine plays a large part in Jewish history, but so it does in modern Mahommendan history, and, after the time of the Jews, surely it plays a larger part than any other country in Christian history. The Temple may have been in Palestine, but so was the Sermon on the Mount and the Crucifixion. I would not deny to Jews in Palestine equal rights to colonisation with those who profess other religions, but a religious test of citizenship seems to me to be the only one admitted by those who take a bigoted and narrow view of one particular epoch of the history of Palestine, and claim for the Jews a position to which they are not entitled.

If my memory serves me right, there are three times as many Jews in the world as could possible get into Palestine if you drove out all the population that remains there now. So that only one-third will get back at the most, and what will happen to the remainder?


Please take the time to read the whole of this thoughtful man's analysis of the situation.

As to why the US supports the state of Israel, one poster has already mentioned Christian Zionists. I'm afraid I consider the US to be just chock-full of religious loonies, and these Bible-bashing, Rapture embracing nutters are promoting a situation which they think will bring about the end of the world. How can this be a good thing? How can anyone find this rational or defensible?

Check out this poll that says that roughly one-third of US voters believe in Christian Zionism, defined as

"a belief that Israel must have all of the promised land, including Jerusalem, to facilitate the second coming of the messiah."


Another factor is the power of the Israeli lobby. The two-thirds of Jews that Lord Montague mentioned - or, to be strictly accurate, those who profess Zionist beliefs - have a powerful political voice. They are prepared to use it in a strident and intimidating fashion to further the interests of the state of Israel as they perceive them. This will include suppressing voices that argue that the state of Israel is racist in nature, and accusing people who point out the extent to which Israel engages in the tactics of state terror as "anti-Semitic".

At this point, I nail my colours to the mast by affirming that the collective punishment of civilians is a hallmark of fascism, whether it's committed by Nazi troops in Occupied Europe, American or British troops in Occupied Iraq, or the IDF in the Occupied territories. I also reject the charges of anti-Semitism which will almost inevitably follow the posting of such an apparently controversial statement. I have many Jewish friends and to have to tiptoe around my views of the conduct of the state of Israel saddens me greatly, and I find myself thinking less of those who condone its atrocities.

And I think a reminder of the extent to which the US protects Israel within the UN is at this point rather timely: have a look at this chart that shows US vetoes from 1972-2006 supporting Israel.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   


(Those of you with an eye for conspiracy theories will note that one of the prime movers in this was Lord Rothschild, btw.)


Fascinating. I had never heard that before. rich23, great work as always, i always stop to read your posts.


My Question is rich23, i can understand the American support for Israel, (even though i don't agree with it) but why would the British goverment condone this Israeli behavour? And if your answer is Tony Blair, would that policy change with a change in leadership? cheers.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   
That's a really tough question. Occasionally British ministers, like Jack Straw, step out of line and suggest that Israel isn't doing anyone any favours by behaving as it is accustomed to do... but they're usually appalled by the controversy that ensues.

Blair is Bush's bitch, it's that simple. Whether this would change when he steps down I simply don't know. And I have to confess similar ignorance about the whys of the Balfour declaration... but I found that letter of Lord Montague and its relevance really struck me. I shall be attempting, in my customary haphazard way, to get a better idea of the history of all this, but at the moment I'm rather at sea myself. Thanks for your kind comment about my posts, btw. It's nice to feel appreciated.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join