Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
It's clear they shouldn't have done that.rick_chasey said:
I think killing young women and parading their naked bodies around or attacking a music festival to kill and take prisoners is not on, regardless of what you call it.TheBigBean said:
I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.surrey_commuter said:
it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned upTheBigBean said:
I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?briantrumpet said:Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.
Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.
FWIW the BBC refers to Hamas as "fighters".
Meanwhile Israel is cutting off water supplies. Fairly sure that is not legal when it affects a civilian population.0 -
My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.TheBigBean said:
I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.surrey_commuter said:
it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned upTheBigBean said:
I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?briantrumpet said:Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.
Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.
There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants0 -
They are as bad as each other, just in different ways.
Hamas has an unusual willingness to hurt civilians, nor are they legitimate representatives of the Palestinian cause. They are absolutely legitimate targets for Israel.
Israel needs to understand that running israel with what is an apartheid regime will never be peaceful, and equal legal recognition of citizenship, regardless of identity, is the only realistic route to peace.0 -
Always is. Britain had a pretty blurry line when it raised Dresden, after all.surrey_commuter said:
My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.TheBigBean said:
I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.surrey_commuter said:
it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned upTheBigBean said:
I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?briantrumpet said:Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.
Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.
There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants0 -
Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.surrey_commuter said:
My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.TheBigBean said:
I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.surrey_commuter said:
it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned upTheBigBean said:
I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?briantrumpet said:Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.
Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.
There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
0 -
The murder of civilians is not the route to improving the chances of ending the apartheid however. It's not an excuse.0
-
Your first statement is true. They both have an unusual willingness to hurt civilians though.rick_chasey said:They are as bad as each other, just in different ways.
Hamas has an unusual willingness to hurt civilians, nor are they legitimate representatives of the Palestinian cause. They are absolutely legitimate targets for Israel.
Israel needs to understand that running israel with what is an apartheid regime will never be peaceful, and equal legal recognition of citizenship, regardless of identity, is the only realistic route to peace.0 -
Of course not, but what is the route?rick_chasey said:The murder of civilians is not the route to improving the chances of ending the apartheid however. It's not an excuse.
0 -
Hamas's goal is the complete removal of Israel. That some of the current Israeli government's actions play into Hamas's propaganda and recruitment does not legitimise them or make them any less a bunch of terrorists.rick_chasey said:The murder of civilians is not the route to improving the chances of ending the apartheid however. It's not an excuse.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Has either side in this ongoing conflict ever had the moral high ground?TheBigBean said:
Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.surrey_commuter said:
My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.TheBigBean said:
I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.surrey_commuter said:
it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned upTheBigBean said:
I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?briantrumpet said:Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.
Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.
There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
With the gradual thawing in relations between much of the Arab world and Israel, I guess Hamas think the future is pretty bleak and that rather extreme actions are necessary.0 -
I think some people think Israel have it. 1967 war etc.Jezyboy said:TheBigBean said:
Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.surrey_commuter said:
My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.TheBigBean said:
I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.surrey_commuter said:
it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned upTheBigBean said:
I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?briantrumpet said:Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.
Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.
There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
Has either side in this ongoing conflict ever had the moral high ground?
With the gradual thawing in relations between much of the Arab world and Israel, I guess Hamas think the future is pretty bleak and that rather extreme actions are necessary.0 -
Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday that talks on a two-state solution that provided for the peaceful coexistence of Israel and the Palestinians were the only way forward once hostilities had ended.0
-
Sure, but other people think Palestine has, and continues to have, the moral high ground.TheBigBean said:
I think some people think Israel have it. 1967 war etc.Jezyboy said:TheBigBean said:
Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.surrey_commuter said:
My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.TheBigBean said:
I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.surrey_commuter said:
it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned upTheBigBean said:
I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?briantrumpet said:Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.
Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.
There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
Has either side in this ongoing conflict ever had the moral high ground?
With the gradual thawing in relations between much of the Arab world and Israel, I guess Hamas think the future is pretty bleak and that rather extreme actions are necessary.
I'd argue any preemptive attack is difficult to justify. (But noting that difficult isn't the same as impossible.)
0 -
WTF has moral high ground got to do with any of this?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Winning conflicts is often about having the moral high ground, so that you gain international support for the cause. Clearly that doesn't work well for the Taiwanese or Tibetans, but it did for others such as black South Africans.rjsterry said:WTF has moral high ground got to do with any of this?
0 -
No disagreement here.rjsterry said:
Hamas's goal is the complete removal of Israel. That some of the current Israeli government's actions play into Hamas's propaganda and recruitment does not legitimise them or make them any less a bunch of terrorists.rick_chasey said:The murder of civilians is not the route to improving the chances of ending the apartheid however. It's not an excuse.
Brits did a right number here.0 -
You've managed to find a way to bring it back to a hobby horse of yours.rick_chasey said:
No disagreement here.rjsterry said:
Hamas's goal is the complete removal of Israel. That some of the current Israeli government's actions play into Hamas's propaganda and recruitment does not legitimise them or make them any less a bunch of terrorists.rick_chasey said:The murder of civilians is not the route to improving the chances of ending the apartheid however. It's not an excuse.
Brits did a right number here.0 -
I think moral high ground and international support are very clearly two separate and unrelated things.TheBigBean said:
Winning conflicts is often about having the moral high ground, so that you gain international support for the cause. Clearly that doesn't work well for the Taiwanese or Tibetans, but it did for others such as black South Africans.rjsterry said:WTF has moral high ground got to do with any of this?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Anyone fancy taking this away from the Labour Party thread?1
-
I don't agree that is a route to peace.rick_chasey said:They are as bad as each other, just in different ways.
Hamas has an unusual willingness to hurt civilians, nor are they legitimate representatives of the Palestinian cause. They are absolutely legitimate targets for Israel.
Israel needs to understand that running israel with what is an apartheid regime will never be peaceful, and equal legal recognition of citizenship, regardless of identity, is the only realistic route to peace.
I don't think there is a route to peace0 -
At the time there was no blurry line over the coventrification of Dresden, that came decades later. I would argue as a result of people not understanding how inaccurate "precision" bombing was.rick_chasey said:
Always is. Britain had a pretty blurry line when it raised Dresden, after all.surrey_commuter said:
My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.TheBigBean said:
I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.surrey_commuter said:
it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned upTheBigBean said:
I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?briantrumpet said:Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.
Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.
There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants0 -
I was expecting Brian to complain about that.kingstongraham said:Anyone fancy taking this away from the Labour Party thread?
0 -
And we still don't have a ULEZ thread. What's worse is I have suddenly got a ULEZ opinion and nowhere to put it.0
-
The other car thread?TheBigBean said:And we still don't have a ULEZ thread. What's worse is I have suddenly got a ULEZ opinion and nowhere to put it.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.TheBigBean said:
Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.surrey_commuter said:
My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.TheBigBean said:
I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.surrey_commuter said:
it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned upTheBigBean said:
I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?briantrumpet said:Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.
Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.
There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.0 -
Feels a bit dirty to open that one.rjsterry said:
The other car thread?TheBigBean said:And we still don't have a ULEZ thread. What's worse is I have suddenly got a ULEZ opinion and nowhere to put it.
0 -
-
I thought the get rid of your car one was the ULEZ one.TheBigBean said:And we still don't have a ULEZ thread. What's worse is I have suddenly got a ULEZ opinion and nowhere to put it.
0 -
Presumably though you would stop short of destroying all property owned by the bomber's family and general indiscriminate bombing? More of a Mosad hit job where they sometimes get the wrong person?surrey_commuter said:
My first point was more about putting a target on your back rather than any reference to the moral high ground.TheBigBean said:
Or even when Ukraine sends drones to posh Russian flats. That never seems to be heavily criticised perhaps due to your first point that Russia has lost the moral high ground.surrey_commuter said:
My own opinion is that once you commit a terrorist act that you are fair game.TheBigBean said:
I tend to agree, but they would still have been labelled terrorists. See Afganistan as an example of how repeated attacks against an occupying military force are labelled.surrey_commuter said:
it is an interesting question. They should not have targeted civilians and they should have stood and fought when the IDF turned upTheBigBean said:
I think an interesting question is what should Hamas have done? Same attack without the civilian stuff? No attack at all?briantrumpet said:Corbyn reminding everyone why he was a disaster: he can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas by name. It shouldn't be hard, however much someone passionately believes that what Israel is doing to the Gaza Strip is indefensible, to condemn Hamas by name for what they've unleashed.
Also, if all citizens are part of the reserves are they still civilians? Maybe you know the answer to that one. Perhaps it is matter of uniform or active duty or something.
There is definitely a blurry line in Ukraine between civilians and combatants
So none of this rules based terrorism like the IRA bomber ducking back across the border, in my opinion you could get shot in bed at any point in the future.0 -
£4bn is really not that much given the overall spend of over £1,000bn, so probably not an unrealistic target.rick_chasey said:Labour says it expects to save £4bn from its clampdown on waste
That old chestnut.
Also puts the £7bn a year on HS2 that everyone was wetting their pants about is really no big deal.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
