Originally Posted by senojekips

Yes,.. I did mention similarities in behaviour to the Nazis, but the Nazis did a lot more than formulate and carry out "The final Solution" which never became policy until April 1941...

---------------------

------------------


OH WELL, THAT'S ALL RIGHT THEN! Let us just forget the little matter of ’ the death camps’ and’ the final solution,' eh?’ Some sort of denial then??

Look, you can deny any comprehension of the nature of your comparison, but that is how it works - repeat the comparison often enough .....................so you keep repeating it. You have maintained this off-topic stance to do just that on this thread, hi-jacked it for your political purposes; I refer to all your contributions on this thread. You have received quite enough air-time here IMHO.

'The Nazis' are synonymous with 'Auschwitz 'and 'the death camps' ‘The Israelis aim is to avoid annihilation and reach a secure peace settlement.


This fact has been in the public domain for many a long year.


The Nuremberg Trials Project:-

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=overview


Now back to topic, about which I have already posted my views.

Originally Posted by rattler

As I said, seems you are confusing contributors, I sure never wrote what you are attributing as quote (!) and my stated opinion to me.

Again, pure ideologically blinded demagogics that now even straightforward falsificates the thread for the purpose of having an argument (or why else did you delete the author to attribute this quote wrongly to me)?

And, just for the record, if you mentioned death camps, you *had* mentioned the Holocaust.

Rattler

My apologies regarding the quotation your quote was not attributed to anyone and I mistook it for your own work.
Example:

Originally Posted by Del Boy

As for Senojekips, who cannot grasp the scale of Holocaust and the Nazis,- 'except for the death camps' he says !!!; His stance may suit the Arabs at the moment, but at an awful price.

Death Camps: Yes, but only as an exception to my statement. Semantics.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Other than the death camps they are trying every other aspect of nazi policy. Gratuitous murder, beatings, curfews, false imprisonment, theft harassment, enforced colonisation, how much more do you want?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Originally Posted by Del Boy

'The Nazis' are synonymous with 'Auschwitz 'and 'the death camps'

I have no disagreement with that statement whatsoever, and you are trying to tell me that I can't make exceptions to this statement.

That would be akin to me saying that "I like vegetables but not brocolli", you state, "but brocolli is a vegetable therefore if you like vegetables you must like brocolli".

Originally Posted by Del Boy

‘The Israelis aim is to avoid annihilation and reach a secure peace settlement.

That is crap and has been bought up and discussed a number of times on this forum, and to my knowledge no one has ever answered it, but again for the record.

If Australia were to donate all of the best parts of England to the starving Ethiopians, would you merely sign it over, to "avoid annihilation and reach a secure peace settlement"?

[QUOTE=Del Boy;543495]

Originally Posted by MontyB

IN WHICH CASE - kindly do not drag me into your off-topic idiocy without any provocation from me whatsoever, in future; and don't start what you can't finish. I am not some soft target for your misplaced ridicule.

Right, as you have requested, back to the topic at hand here; but I do not have the necessary informed opinion on the subject to pass judgement.

Yeah I should know better after all the old maxim warning against arguing with idiot's as they just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience seems applicable.

So now you get another attempt at a smug insult and we will call it even, you can go back to making the same post over and over until the thread is closed and you will have succeeded in killing discussion on this topic, if you cant win an argument turn it into a shouting match until it is closed.

[QUOTE=MontyB;543549]

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Yeah I should know better after all the old maxim warning against arguing with idiot's as they just drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience seems applicable.

So now you get another attempt at a smug insult and we will call it even, you can go back to making the same post over and over until the thread is closed and you will have succeeded in killing discussion on this topic, if you cant win an argument turn it into a shouting match until it is closed.

No shouting at this end.
What the hell are you complaining about? You dragged me into your nonsense without any reason whatsoever. And no shouting from me. Same post?? I don't think so, Sonny Jim.




Extracts from Times on line January 11, 2009
Read the complete article here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article5489436.ece
No, we are not all Hamas now
By Dominic Lawson

Those who claim the IDF also deliberately targets civilians don’t have to believe the official spokesman’s denials: they could speak to someone such as Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British Army campaigns in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, and was most recently senior military adviser to the Cabinet Office. Kemp told me that “Hamas deploys suicide attackers including women and children, and rigs up schools and houses with booby-trap explosives. Its leaders knew as a matter of certainty this would lead to civilian casualties if there was a ground battle. Virtually every aspect of its operations is illegal under international humanitarian law – ‘war crimes’ in the emotive language usually reserved for the Israelis”.
Colonel Kemp points out that if the IDF had no regard for civilian lives it would never have leafleted and telephoned residents in Gaza, warning them when it was about to attack their area: after all, that also gives Hamas notice – hardly the act of an army devoted to military victory at all costs. Similarly, the IDF’s unilateral commitment to a daily three-hour ceasefire to permit the evacuation (to Israel) of casualties, and for the passage of “humanitarian aid”, also allows Hamas time to regroup and redeploy for future attacks.
Of course, none of these arguments can penetrate the brains of the superannuated Stalinists, vicarious jihadists and attention-seeking actors and pop stars who think it’s cool to go on marches chanting, “We are all Hamas now”. Even if these luvvies might not be aware that on Christmas Eve Hamas legalised crucifixion as a punishment for those who “weaken the spirit of the people”, and have been shooting such political enemies in the head when they find them in hospitals conveniently injured by Israeli bombing raids, they still deserve to be dismissed as useful idiots for a depraved death cult.
This is not exactly the classical doctrine of deterrence: it’s supposed to stop people attacking you in the first place. Yet the Israeli attack on Gaza is part of the same policy of delayed deterrence. Paradoxical though this might seem, it is also essential if the process towards an independent Palestinian state is to have a future. For until the people of Israel believe that such a state – including the heights of the West Bank, which overlook Tel Aviv – is not a threat to their own existence, they will never support a government which abandons those territories, won in an earlier war of self-defence.
If you believe otherwise, go to Yad Vashem.
dominic.lawson

[QUOTE=Del Boy;544168]

Originally Posted by MontyB

No shouting at this end.
What the hell are you complaining about? You dragged me into your nonsense without any reason whatsoever. And no shouting from me. Same post?? I don't think so, Sonny Jim.




Extracts from Times on line January 11, 2009
Read the complete article here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article5489436.ece
No, we are not all Hamas now
By Dominic Lawson

Those who claim the IDF also deliberately targets civilians don’t have to believe the official spokesman’s denials: they could speak to someone such as Colonel Richard Kemp, who commanded British Army campaigns in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, and was most recently senior military adviser to the Cabinet Office. Kemp told me that “Hamas deploys suicide attackers including women and children, and rigs up schools and houses with booby-trap explosives. Its leaders knew as a matter of certainty this would lead to civilian casualties if there was a ground battle. Virtually every aspect of its operations is illegal under international humanitarian law – ‘war crimes’ in the emotive language usually reserved for the Israelis”.
Colonel Kemp points out that if the IDF had no regard for civilian lives it would never have leafleted and telephoned residents in Gaza, warning them when it was about to attack their area: after all, that also gives Hamas notice – hardly the act of an army devoted to military victory at all costs. Similarly, the IDF’s unilateral commitment to a daily three-hour ceasefire to permit the evacuation (to Israel) of casualties, and for the passage of “humanitarian aid”, also allows Hamas time to regroup and redeploy for future attacks.
Of course, none of these arguments can penetrate the brains of the superannuated Stalinists, vicarious jihadists and attention-seeking actors and pop stars who think it’s cool to go on marches chanting, “We are all Hamas now”. Even if these luvvies might not be aware that on Christmas Eve Hamas legalised crucifixion as a punishment for those who “weaken the spirit of the people”, and have been shooting such political enemies in the head when they find them in hospitals conveniently injured by Israeli bombing raids, they still deserve to be dismissed as useful idiots for a depraved death cult.
This is not exactly the classical doctrine of deterrence: it’s supposed to stop people attacking you in the first place. Yet the Israeli attack on Gaza is part of the same policy of delayed deterrence. Paradoxical though this might seem, it is also essential if the process towards an independent Palestinian state is to have a future. For until the people of Israel believe that such a state – including the heights of the West Bank, which overlook Tel Aviv – is not a threat to their own existence, they will never support a government which abandons those territories, won in an earlier war of self-defence.
If you believe otherwise, go to Yad Vashem.
dominic.lawson

Well there is a man that has managed to indicate his lack of knowledge in a few quick sentences.

‘war crimes’ in the emotive language usually reserved for the Israelis”.

Yes its because war crimes are generally a term used to describe a state sponsored terrorism, at last check of my atlas the Palestinians are stateless and as such they commit terrorist acts.

I highly recommend that he learn about "International Humanitarian Law" and how/who it applies to.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Those who claim the IDF also deliberately targets civilians don’t have to believe the official spokesman’s denials:

I guess the IDF must be lying then?

Originally Posted by Haaretz

IDF admits targeting civilian areas in Lebanon with cluster bombs By Nir Hasson and Meron Rapoport, Haaretz Correspondents Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789876.html

Del Boy, I think you also missed my question regarding an Israeli "Peace", in Post 122.

If Australia were to donate all of the best parts of England to the starving Ethiopians, would you merely sign it over, to "avoid annihilation and reach a secure peace settlement"?

I guess the correct name of the post should have been "RADICAL ISLAM allows rape and torture". Islam is a good religion. Having lived alongside with them in my country for 20 some years I have rarely read / heard abt the ridiculous muslim rules. Compared that with the regular woman abusing in the mid east. I remember seeing this cell phone video on extremefuse.com where a 17 year old muslim gal was literally stoned to death for sleeping with another guy. The lethal blow came with a cement brick which was used to crush her head. If you have a strong stomach try to find it - I am not sure if it exists yet. Anywayz, such kind of crap does not happen in democratic countries where Islam is rather pedominant in certain areas. Also, in some mid east countries, a gal cannot report rape until someone saw the act of penetration. Which is clearly biased. Some muslim leader tried to oppose that. Everything I am trying to say is that only radical islam does and promotes crap. not the regular islam.

Originally Posted by makhdee

I guess the correct name of the post should have been "RADICAL ISLAM allows rape and torture". Islam is a good religion. Having lived alongside with them in my country for 20 some years I have rarely read / heard abt the ridiculous muslim rules. Compared that with the regular woman abusing in the mid east. I remember seeing this cell phone video on extremefuse.com where a 17 year old muslim gal was literally stoned to death for sleeping with another guy. The lethal blow came with a cement brick which was used to crush her head. If you have a strong stomach try to find it - I am not sure if it exists yet. Anywayz, such kind of crap does not happen in democratic countries where Islam is rather pedominant in certain areas. Also, in some mid east countries, a gal cannot report rape until someone saw the act of penetration. Which is clearly biased. Some muslim leader tried to oppose that. Everything I am trying to say is that only radical islam does and promotes crap. not the regular islam.

Yes but it could easily be changed to "Radical [insert any cause] allows human rights violations".

Christians and Jews would have a major fit if the worlds media only focused on the radical aspects of those religions as well because in the end all radical groups are generally whack jobs that are rarely supported by their own mainstream.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Christians and Jews would have a major fit if the worlds media only focused on the radical aspects of those religions as well because in the end all radical groups are generally whack jobs that are rarely supported by their own mainstream.

Unfortunately, I feel that with the era of the Televangelist that Christianity is only being hurt. 98% of the Christian world doesn't think like that, but as long as it appears on CNN and is broadcast into the household it will grow.