Presumably, all the usual hand-wringers whining about it think they should just have let these fvcking savages smash down its borders and attack its citizens with only the prospect of a stern telling off to deter them?
Fvck that.
Printable View
Presumably, all the usual hand-wringers whining about it think they should just have let these fvcking savages smash down its borders and attack its citizens with only the prospect of a stern telling off to deter them?
Fvck that.
I read that they dropped a load of leaflets telling them they'd be putting their lives at risk. If true everyone's fair game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
If they needed leaflets to tell them that, they can't have been paying much attention, I'd have thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Goat Sverige
Still, job done. 'Protests' have been suspended. wd the IDF imo.
They tend to take a robust stance on dealing with security threats to their population, don't they? Which you'd think should be commonplace everywhere, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
My lawyers have advised me not to comment on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Yes. It's almost as though their government regards protecting the lives of its citizens as its primary goal rather than worrying about whether people are being offended and pandering to the whining of minority groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
Radical stuff.
THe irony, eh? Israel, home of those jews persecuted in europe for centuries, has no time for the 'whining of minority groups'.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
How overly sensitive of people to be offended by being killed :)
Morning Ken. How're the newts these days?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
:hehe: I knew I could draw you out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Right. There were around 15-20,000 males explicitly saying that they were going to attack and kill Israelis if they got through. They were armed, there were boys being sent to the fence with wirecutters and potentially lethal explosive devices attached to kites being flown at the IDF.
What would you have done?
With a mighty army and the most sophisticated military weaponry that american money can buy, I would have sat the other side of the fence and said'see you when you get here, pal'......Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I dont actually know what has happened, havent caught up with the news yet....
I do think it is rather offensive of you to refer to these people as males. How do you know how they identify their gender ?
You are worse than Germaine Greer!
Right. So you'd have allowed your first line of defence to be breached before responding, thus endangering the lives and position of your military personnel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Zulu would've been a much shorter film if you'd been in charge at Rorke's Drift, mate.
Boys with wire cutters, dude. THis is hardly Rorke's Drift.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I think you are missing, in classic Don Pacifico style, the notion of a proportionate response. It is what responsible, mature nations do.
We have moved beyond the era of Lord Palmerston. Apart from the Falklands, obviously.
Yes. Boys sent there to breach the defence in the cynical hope that their youth would either a/ stop the soldiers shooting them or b/ make for good publicity if they did get shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Of course, had they simply been allowed to breach the defences, the defensive position would have been fatally undermined and it is perfectly possible for large numbers prepared to take heavy casualties to swarm smaller groups of soldiers - however heavily armed - and to kill them (see Mogadishu 1993 for evidence). The Israelis - correctly - were not prepared to risk that happening.
That is true. However, you are hovering between referrring to the Israeli army as some combination of the 2nd Warwickshire at Rorke's Drift and Dad's Army. THis is Israel, not Warmington on Sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
It is fair to assume that Israel has assembled a force sufficient to repel a few lads with wire cutters. If they hadn't, and that is why they were forced to open fire, that is their own fault and causes grave concerns as to the country's use of its military might.
If my position seems soft, lefty or silly I can only offer you the fact that it seems to accord with the response of governments such as Germany and our very own lords and masters.
**** me, if the Germans think you have gone a bit far you need to look at yourself.....
Not really. The Germans government are the fvcking idiots who thought letting a few million third world muslim men into western Europe would be a great plan. Our government are the people who hound our soldiers for doing their duty while protecting terrorists and allowing ISIS members back into the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
There are four year-olds I would ask for guidance on questions of national security before I'd ask the governments of most western European nations. They are - pretty much without exception - weak, vacillating, cowardly cvnts.
I am assuming that you are exempting President Trump from that description, who just happens to be the only major leader who fully backs Israel's actions. No surprise as we know how fond he is off walls and borders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Did you think Neville Chamberlain was a weak, vacillating cowardly ****?
Of course. Trump gets it. People don't actually want much from their governments other than to protect them regardless of the 'optics' or other sensitivities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Chamberlain was to some extent a victim of previous governments' failure to anticipate and prepare for the need for war (I'm looking at you, Stanley Baldwin) and did some good things post-Munich when he finally realised that war was unavoidable, but yes, some of his actions were shamefully craven.
See, to me that is incredibly unfair. His crime (if there was one) was being taken in by Hitler's true ambitions. THe policy he followed was dictated not by previous governments but overwhelmingly by popular opinion, which was genuinely terrified of a war and particularly a war that could be avoided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
There is a responsibility that comes with being a major power where the prospect of action, and occasionally the threat of it, carries moral as well as military might. It comes with maturity. It is perhaps slightly unfair to demand this maturity from ISrael at this point in their history, given the fairly recent past and the stormy present. But it needs to develop.
Israelis understand rather better than most 'the tragic sense of life' as Douglas Murray puts it. They know that, if not defended vigorously, everything one takes for granted can be swept away in a very short space of time. Murray also attributes to this the very different attitudes to immigration of western and eastern Europeans. Former Soviet Bloc countries understand that freedom and safety are precious and fragile, while western Europeans three generations removed from WWII have forgotten and think they are forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
We may one day regret we were so much more 'mature' than Israel.
and with the weapons at Trump's disposal we may very soon regret a lack of maturity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
I dont think conflating foreign policy with immigration is terribly helpful here, although I do get the point you are making (bloody Islamophobe!)
The conflation is deliberate and valid. Governments ought to have a clear vision of what one's country means, what it should be and a clear-eyed grasp of how that should be achieved and where the red lines are. The Israelis have those things and we - or at least our politicians - have frittered them away on fantasies of a world without nation states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
But the rise of nation states led to repeated wars, empires forming and collapsing and, even worse, ordinary people becoming somewhat involved in how a country is run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
In short, it was a nightmare. Hence the EU, the UN, NATO and all the other apparatus of the new world order swept in to rescue us from our parochial, narrow minded view of our own corner of the world.
We all bleed, b. We all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures and we all believe in a flat back four.
We people are one. You and your ilk want to go back to the chaos of nationalism.... shame on you!
No-one said it was a bed of roses. However, it's abundantly clear that, despite the best efforts of politicians for 70 years, the notion of the nation state and its attendant nationalisms are stubbornly persistent. This is because people like them. They like identifying with people who speak the same language, eat the same food, share the same cultural reference points. They prefer such people to the alternative. This is why the notion of a European identity equivalent to one's national identity is plainly laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I think we both know that isnt true when it comes to food. Immigration saved us from a century of pork pies, pasties and mashed potato.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Thank **** for the Indians, the Chinese, the Turks and, to a lesser extent, our Italian friends.
. . . . . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir C
I'm speaking about countries who have a strong food culture in the first place. The French prefer French food, the Italians Italian, Spaniards Spanish and so forth. They're deeply chauvinistic about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Better than your mum's, which I pushed back up her arse with both arms last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbert Augustus Chapman
I feel quite queasy now. I wish I hadn't said that. :-(
THe poor sods have never got pissed and had a bloody good kebab. They dont know what they are missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Is this a universal principle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Of its nature it cannot be. It is for each nation's government to protect its people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
I mean universal in the sense of all countries. All governments, at least. (Not all nations have governments, and some nations are in multiple countries.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Of course. All governments must protect their people as they see fit. However, that is not a carte blanche for external aggression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
Right. So, for example, a secular government is entitled to defend against an externally-funded (and staffed) assault by head-chopping jihadis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
Yes, well here we get into questions of justification, don't we? The US and UK justified their actions in Iraq in 2003 on the basis of preventing another 9/11. That claim looks a bit sick now, though, doesn't it? In other words, where a clear and present danger to the country and its people cannot be proved, it is more difficult to claim an entitlement to overseas action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash
I don't know why they don't just kill them all. I suppose it's a bit like the Aborigines in Australia. Just keep pushing them further and further out into the desert. Eventually they all just perish of their own accord.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burney
More of an indictment of the other Arab Countries than of Israel. Israel does what it does. The other Arab countries, in accepting this state of affairs, are complicit in the death count.Quote:
Originally Posted by eastgermanautos
Maybe the Pals should be offered a shítload of money to move to other Arab countries, then Israel gets Gaza and WB, gives back the Golan and is told "right, that's yer lot. There's your ethnically pure state, so build a wall round it and stay in there. And no more alliances with Wahabbism, and supporting AQ and ISIS". Everyone signs peace deals and goes home. Or to their new homes, for the Pals.Quote:
Originally Posted by eastgermanautos
This may not be entirely serious.