The Slaughter Game

[Yelof]

NI peace process

I also found it bizare for instance that it was the parties that represented the loyalist terrorists that often gave the most reasonable views from unionism. Although it is not hard to sound sane when compared to Paisly

[DanaC]

Paisly

I think we just found RADAR's kinsman!

[DanaC]

Syc, I meant that the British had betrayed the Palestinians when they had trusted us to act on our word. And we also betrayed the Iraqis when they had trusted us to act fairly

[elSicomoro]

I dunno, Dana...about the only thing unfair about the 1947 plan was that Israel had less people and was to get more land--even though a lot of it was desert.

[DanaC]

Regardless of whether the settlement was fair or not ( no doubt there are wildly differing opinions on that here) Britain wasnot true to her word and as such I consider that a betrayal of Palestinian trust. A betrayal we have compounded by standing alongside a US foreign policy which precludes fair dealing between Israel and Palestine.

Lots of words spoken about how much we condemn Israel's actions, but the truth is our Primeminister has manouvred us into such incredibly weak position with the United States that we are no longer even able to act as a voice for Palestine with the US.

Seems strange I know that we'd be in such a position in the first place but the truth of the matter is that despite our earlier betrayals the people of Palestine and the people of Britain ( in my limited experience) considered one another as friends.

The same can be said of Iraq. We had such a long history with the people ofthat region and its a history of blood and tears but there was in the last few decades a growing sense of freindship between the ordinary Iraqi and the ordinary Brit. Despite the sanctions despite all that grotesque unfairness the mood on the streets in Iraq was friendly towards ordinary brits. I recall a reporter going to a football match and talking to a couple of the people in th crowd. They seemed bemused by it all. They were warm and friendly about the British.

We stood shoulder to shoulder with the US government but like the other nations we urged the Iraqis to destroy their arsenal ( whatthere was of it) We stood over them whilst they dismantled their country's main defenses and then when they were done we marched in with the American forces. I believe we acted with dishonour and I see it as a betrayal of a very old friendship.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by DanaC
Regardless of whether the settlement was fair or not ( no doubt there are wildly differing opinions on that here) Britain wasnot true to her word and as such I consider that a betrayal of Palestinian trust. A betrayal we have compounded by standing alongside a US foreign policy which precludes fair dealing between Israel and Palestine.

How was Britain untrue to its word?

[Radar]

Oh? Thomas Jefferson just went up to King George III and gave him a big wet kiss, and tah dah! Independence was granted to the American colonies! How could I have missed out on that fact? I guess I was asleep that day in civics class.

You obviously didn't read my post or understand it. Independence can be won by force of arms and in my opinion it's often the only way to do so. The Palestinian people are already independent. So any attacks on Israel are merely aggression for the sake of terrorism, not for winning independence. That is why their actions are not justified.

Great Britain signed the ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement’ promising Palestine to the Arabs in return for a revolutionary Arab liberation war against the Ottoman Empire (Turkey).

Great Britan offered to give a significant part of the land to them (not ALL of it) and followed through on it. Britan gave them the land that created the countries of Jordan, Yemen, and one more I can't remember off the top of my head. Try again.

BINGO! In your own words, big guy!

Yep. And since the Arab Palestinian people were camping out on someone else's land while they were away, they were not the rightful owners at any point. Game, Set, and Match. Thanks for playing.

Yelof should just throw on an orange vest and move to Belfast with the rest of his kind. If you're going to make a comparison between the Israeli/Palestinian and that of the Irish/Ulster conflict, Israel is represented by the Republic of Ireland, not by Northern Ireland.

[DanaC]

Yelof should just throw on an orange vest and move to Belfast with the rest of his kind. If you're going to make a comparison between the Israeli/Palestinian and that of the Irish/Ulster conflict, Israel is represented by the Republic of Ireland, not by Northern Ireland.

No. Israel is being equated with neither the Republic or Northern Ireland, it's being equated with Britain.

[Radar]

It's being falsly identified as such. Israel would be represented in the Irish conflict as the republic of Ireland.

[DanaC]

Nope. Because the Republic of Ireland never posted troops in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland was taken off the rest of Ireland by the British. The dynamics are one of conquest and occupation. The Republic of Ireland is Palestine and Northern Ireland is the Gaza strip. Britain is Israel

[Yelof]

I don't understand your line of thinking

The Palestinian people are already independent. So any attacks on Israel are merely aggression for the sake of terrorism, not for winning independence

If the Palestinian people are already independent them why are there Israeli tanks on the streets of Rafah and Ramallah.

Your theory of national rights then seems to consist of two states, one where it is valid for a people to forge a national identity and fight for independence and another state when these issues are resolved and it is no longer valid to persue claims of national idendity or create new idendities. I am unsure how your theory allows the transition from one state to another state?

I brought Ireland up because from your IM handle I could make a good guess as to your feelings on the issue and I found that interesting when I knew your beliefs on terrorism amd the rights of force of arms. How is it that you consider Irish terrorists were right in fighting the democratic governemnt of the UK in 1916 to 1921 when there had never historically been a nation of Irish who considered themselves just as Irish and that idendity had only emerged gradually under the hundreds of years of British rule? I ask this question as a devils advocate and in doing so this doesn't represent perhaps my own views on the Irish situation.

So you can stuff your "go back to Belfast" thing where the sun don't shine

[Radar]

The Republic of Ireland is represented by Israel
Northern Ireland is represented by the Palestinians
And the UK is represented by the United States.

Ireland owned that land outright and lived on it, not as squatters, but as owners. Part of that land was basically taken over by the Ulsters. The UK wouldn't allow the republic to attack the North and take control back of thier own land.

The Jews own Israel outright and lived on their own legitimately owned land. Their neighbors started attacking them immediately and the US has stopped from taking the necessary steps to secure their safety from their neighbors through bribery, threats, etc. for decades.

If the Palestinian people are already independent them why are there Israeli tanks on the streets of Rafah and Ramallah

Because the Palestinians keep attacking thier neighbors. Mexico is an independent and sovereign nation. But you can bet your ass you'd see American tanks in the streets of Mexico City if they bombed the shit out of American women and children for 50 years.

As soon as the Palestinian people completely stop attacking, the tanks go away.

How is it that you consider Irish terrorists were right in fighting the democratic governemnt of the UK in 1916 to 1921 when there had never historically been a nation of Irish who considered themselves just as Irish and that idendity had only emerged gradually under the hundreds of years of British rule?

I don't consider any terrorist to be right. I was even approached many years ago to do some computer work (hacking) for the IRA, but I refused. I'm American first, and Irish second and even though I think all of Ireland should be under the same non-Ulster Irish flag, it doesn't mean I support killing innocents.

It doesn't matter what those in Northern claim...they aren't Irish. All of Ireland is the Republic of Ireland and the only thing saving the asses of the Northern Irish is the UK, which is just like America stopping Israel from exacting the sort of retribution the Palestinian people truly deserve.

Those in Belfast did not fight for and win their independence. They had someone else do it so their independence isn't valid. If Mike Tyson has a fight scheduled with Lennox Lewis and Lennox brings 10 other boxers into the ring and they beat the crap out of Tyson, did Lennox Lewis earn the win?

[Yelof]

This is how I see it

The Republic of Ireland is represented by Jordan, Egypt, Syria etc
Northern Irish Unionists are represented by the Israelis
Northern Irish Nationalists are represented by the Palestinians
And the UK is represented by the United States.


It could be claimed that the last time Irish/Catholics/Nationalists
(lets call them the green team for short hand in future) owned Ulster they
considered themselves Ulstermen and not Irishmen because the concept of a
United Ireland was not of that time. This could be considered similar to your
claim that the Palestinians never had a national identity under the Ottoman Empire.
However let that pass, Ulster once didn't have a protestant majority
(lets call them the orange team), that majority is descended from Scottish settlers who
arrived with English encouragement from the 17C onwards.
They took the best land and they forced the green team to the poor land and into other
parts of Ireland. They remained there because when the rest of Ireland (Republic of Ireland) said fit to tell
the British to leave, the British found it impossible to leave behind those (the orange team) who had been
useful during their rule there, had a vigourous political body in the UK and that by keeping them supplied with cash
could maintain them in their little apartheid state. The green team fought the orange by political and military
means, the Republic of Ireland at times supplied the green team with arms or cash but often scared of the power of nationalism
repressed them even while giving lip service to their cause.

The Israelis arrived in Palestine for the most part in the early 20C and after WWII,
they took the best land by economic but also in large part by force of arms. When WWII ends and the mandate powers (UK France) who had held sway in the Middle East (ME) since after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire carve up the ME to suit them selves creating the Arab states. Due to pitty on the jews after the Holocaust and zionist terrorism Palestine is carved into two states, the better parts going to the Jewish minority. The US supports
the Israelis with cash and arms because of the Jewish lobby and also because of the Cold War.
The Palestinians fought the Israelisby political and military
means, the Arab States at times supplied the Palestinians with arms or cash but often scared of the power of Arab Nationalism
repressed them even while giving lip service to their cause.

I think my linking of the two conflicts fits better.

Your theory also seems to break down on the issue of legitimacy?

Is it just the Biblical justification of the chosen people that gives then the sole rights to the Land of Palestine?

Personally I don't believe in claims for territory that stretch beyond a lifetime,
that is why I feel Israel who took land from the Palestinians in the last 50 years has a moral obligation to seek for and offer
an equitable solution, where as the historical claim (the zionist position) of the Israelis to Palestinian land is paper thin, however they are there and it would be inhuman to remove them, compensation to the Palestinians
>edit to finish sentence I forgot
should come in the form of political settlements and cash.

Terrorist actions by extremists on both sides should be irrelevent to this central issue, however it is those extermists who would be seem to have been left in charge.

quotes by radar

even though I think all of Ireland should be under the same non-Ulster Irish flag, it doesn't mean I support killing innocents

kill every last one of them... allow them a week to evacuate before launching the attack

You do advocate ethnic cleansing, and you would kill any who wished to stay and defend their rightful home or was not fast enough

Originally posted by Radar


Americans fought for their own independence and didn't have to attack another country to get it.

I read your post alright. We fought Great Britain. I’m sure it considered itself attacked.

Originally posted by Radar

Great Britan offered to give a significant part of the land to them (not ALL of it) and followed through on it. Britan gave them the land that created the countries of Jordan, Yemen, and one more I can't remember off the top of my head. Try again.

In 1915, acting on behalf of the British Government, Sir Henry McMahon promised Sherif Husayn (Hussein) of Mecca, Arab control over the whole of areas to be liberated from Turkey, except an area to the West of Syria and some other minor concessions. A map drawn at the time shows that Palestine was part of the area to be under under Arab control. (see attached)

Originally posted by Radar

Yep. And since the Arab Palestinian people were camping out on someone else's land while they were away, they were not the rightful owners at any point. Game, Set, and Match. Thanks for playing.

An Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1945 and 1946 examined the status of Palestine. According to the report, at the end of 1946, 1,269,000 Arabs and 608,000 Jews resided within the borders of Mandate Palestine. Jews had purchased 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine. This was about 20% of the land that could be settled and cultivated. About 46% of the land belonged to Arab owners living on the land or absentee owners, and about the same amount was government land. The partition borders were drawn to give the Jews a majority within the allotted area of the Jewish state, but the land conquered during the fighting included the populous Arab areas of the Galilee, as well as Arab towns such as Lod and Ramla. Greater Jersusalem, which was to be internationalized, included about 100,000 Jews and a larger number of Arabs.

Radar, you can't even give me an interesting game, much less win one.

[Griff]

We all need to remember one thing about Radar's opinion here. It is just opinion because as a Libertarian he will not use America's armed forces to defend Israels borders. Israels security is Israels problem, not ours. Radar is not arguing for the Apocalypse like a segment of the Republican Party. I'll let him respond to the empty charge of isolationism which somebody will now feel compelled to bring forward.