Brit Liberal MP in PLENTY hot water

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
This what you tend to get with some female MPs: loose cannons. Witness Clare Short as well. Add Lib Dem into the mix and it makes it doubly explosive.

Good to know people here aren't prejudiced. It's not like any male MP's do anything wrong

[Buck Birdseed]

So tell me why it's justified from the Israeli viewpoint to continue to keep an entire people under their heel in the name of "security"? Out, now, apologise completely and absolutely no compromise whatsoever.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Or seeing the effects of the PA's policies, from an alternative point of view.

I don't think that is what your average future suicide bomber is going to be thinking when they see their friends being bombed.

so if this eminent MP had been brought up in a right wing orthodox Israeli family she might have become a settler, and if as a settler she had seen friend and relatives murdered, she might have become an anti-arab racist, an advocate of the expulsion of the Palestinians, or worse. Did she mention that in her speech??? Obviously the statement was more than a though exercise to prove that all human actions have causes - it was an attempt to show sympathy for the perpetrators of certain actions, and to implicity excuse them, in whole or in part.

She was speaking at a pro-Palestine lobby and is sympathetic to their cause. Its understandable she is going to make a speech the crowd is receptive to.

Her only fault is that she did not issue the standard disclaimer in force, despite the fact it should be automatically implied that any correct thinking person would not condone these acts.

Ever get so wound up by someone that you want to hit them? I know I do. Your logic says that because I can identify with the desire to do something wrong, I must secretly think it is ok to punch people. I am not identifying with the perpetrator, but with the desire.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty

Ever get so wound up by someone that you want to hit them? I know I do. Your logic says that because I can identify with the desire to do something wrong, I must secretly think it is ok to punch people. I am not identifying with the perpetrator, but with the desire.

Its wrong, but excusable. And the lib dems had to make a choice about whether someone who thought terrorism of this kind was wrong, but excusable, was someone they wanted in a position of leadership.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
So tell me why it's justified from the Israeli viewpoint to continue to keep an entire people under their heel in the name of "security"? Out, now, apologise completely and absolutely no compromise whatsoever.

they dont want to keep a people under their heel.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snotty


I don't think that is what your average future suicide bomber is going to be thinking when they see their friends being bombed.

i thought we were talking about what an english MP had learned when going to Gaza. It was claimed she saw the effects of Israels policies. I think its just as valid to say she saw the effects of the PA's policies.

[Sirotnikov]

Buck - have you heard this great song by Monty Python "How Sweet, to be an Idiot"? You should add it to your play list.

Having assumed everything you want to assume about the Israeli public and leaders based on propoganda, you are now fully qualified to be a suicide bomber

---

Obviously I can also understand how a kid can become a suicide bomer.

But I feel rather sad that only part of the reasons are represented.

For instance, the cermons on national TV calling for suicide bombing is not mentioned. Arafat's calls for millions of shahids (martyrs) at the gates of Jerusalem. The palestinian school books which have problems in the spirit of "how much are 8 jews + 12 jews?" and the hamas propoganda that reigns freely under the watching eye of Arafat, in every education place, from elementary school to universities.

[Standup]

But surely the main reason is that they're suppressed/oppressed and the propaganda is going to be anti isreali and calling for martyrs until until there is a 'free' palestinian homeland ? Normal military force or voting isn't going to work ?

And that's a question and not an opinion before someone takes offence.

I do agree though that the sacking of the lib dem was a bit extreme especially considering the wide variety of ideas and views the LIb Dems normally have in the party.

[pchang]

propaganda against a particular group does not need any basis in reality to become widespread and successful.

[Imran Siddiqui]

She said she might just think about it in their conditions, as in she can understand the reasons why they would do it, but that she thinks it's wrong. I agree with her. I can understand why they would want to. I don't support it, but then I don't support Israel's occupation either.

I see nothing wrong with her statement. In fact I've said similar.

they dont want to keep a people under their heel.

Well they've sure fooled me then .

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Out, now, apologise completely and absolutely no compromise whatsoever.

Good for you. Glad to see "rabid, unrealistic and completely devoid of comprehension beyond ISRAELIS = BAD GUYS" studies are going well.

[Snotty]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Its wrong, but excusable. And the lib dems had to make a choice about whether someone who thought terrorism of this kind was wrong, but excusable, was someone they wanted in a position of leadership.

You make her out to be some strange hybrid peace loving death monger. Mass murder is never excusable, and unless she truly is a fruit cake, then this should be implied. understanding/identifying with an emotion does not = excusing it.

i thought we were talking about what an english MP had learned when going to Gaza. It was claimed she saw the effects of Israels policies. I think its just as valid to say she saw the effects of the PA's policies.

Not in this case. The violence she was caught in was not a product of the PA. As far as I can tell, Hamas militants ambushed Israeli soldiers. Israel retaliated by calling in helicopters to strike the car of Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi. Only they wounded some 25 innocent Palestinians as well. Thats Israel turning to terrorism in reponse to a purely military attack. The violence then escalated into suicide bombings, but it is quite arguable that Israel forced the escalation in this case.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ned, aren't all bombers who kill people homocide bombers?

Sounds right, Che.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Has the US apologised for Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

No.

We should!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Perhaps I, being born 40 years after WWII, am not representative for the actions of the nations in which I live, during that war?

Perhaps, if you acknowledge that which your grandfathers did was wrong.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
So tell me why it's justified from the Israeli viewpoint to continue to keep an entire people under their heel in the name of "security"? Out, now, apologise completely and absolutely no compromise whatsoever.

You failed to consider that Israel is not surrounded by an ocean as is Britain.

Moreover, if the PA were a state, Israel would be at war with that state.

[Whaleboy]

So what are you actually trying to say Ned?

[Ned]

You are as guilty as your grandfathers or the Palestinian homicide bombers if you think that their actions were justified or are justifiable.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
How can the Brits who slaughtered millions of German civilians in the last war for the purposes of revenge and to futher their war aims even begin to legitimately show outrage at the pro-homicide bomber position of this grandmother.

You make it sound like the USAF gave more of a damn...

Only reason for the "Brits at night, USAF in daylight" split was that the USAF pilots were not up to flying or piloting at night. Whole strategy was alien to them.

Also, you make it sound like the 3rd Reich was totally defenceless. Every bullet and shell fired at the Brit bombers was one less fired at the USAF daylight bombers. Every weapon system deployed in defence of the Reich was one less at the fighting fronts.

And while I'm at it - how much ordnance did YOU guys drop on North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia? On people with little or no air defence, often using plastic coated munitions to defeat surgical attempts with metal detectors.

Over to you, Mr "War is really a nice game with rules" Ned.

[Ned]

Cruddy, if you haven't noticed, I condemn our targeting of civilians during the war. My position is that one cannot have a double standard.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by CerberusIV


This is what you get when people want to influence a democracy but can't vote. Their only course of action is to make life for those who can vote so unpleasant that the electorate choose politicians who offer a means of resolving the situation.

I don't agree with the tactics but I don't see much else working for the Palestinians to give them a reasonable settlement. Unfortunately this has now been taken over by the more militant types for whom it represents a means of political power within the Palestinian population and who stand to lose rather than gain from a negotiated settlement.

It's actually a relief to hear a politician say something controversial but not entirely stupid or irrelevant and then defend it.

They could try blowing up their own fvcked up leadership instead. The only reason Sharon is in power is because the Israelis don't have a valid partner to negotiate with. The Pals need a civil war in order to bring into power people who can make and keep an agreement.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Has the US apologised for Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

"We're sorry that we didn't come up with the nuclear bomb earlier and preemptively strike Tokyo in order to end the war before it began, saving millions. "

G.W. Bush

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Surely the "debate" is centered around the Israelis wanting to continue to oppress and humiliate the palestinians when the only morally acceptable move would be to get the **** out of there, now, without any caveats of any kind and pay the pals shitloads of money for all the pain that's been caused to them for the past 50 years?

Is there any state of being or action by others that isn't a humiliation to the Arab nation?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Has the US apologised for Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

I didnt realize this thread was about the US or Japan

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I see nothing wrong with her statement. In fact I've said similar.

But you're wrong about most things.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Well they've sure fooled me then .

Who hasn't?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Buck - have you heard this great song by Monty Python "How Sweet, to be an Idiot"? You should add it to your play list.

Having assumed everything you want to assume about the Israeli public and leaders based on propoganda, you are now fully qualified to be a suicide bomber

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sprayber


I didnt realize this thread was about the US or Japan

No, this is about my assertion that the Brits seem to have a double standard concerning attacks on civilians. When they do it, it is of course justified in that it furthers their war aims. When the PALs do it, it is not justified despite the fact that it furthers (at least to their view) their war aims.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Ned
Cruddy, if you haven't noticed, I condemn our targeting of civilians during the war. My position is that one cannot have a double standard.

Of course you can... You keep banging on about Brit WW2 night raids but say nothing about the US' history of targetting civilians.

It seems to me you're saying, "that wasn't me". Well, Dresden wasn't us, personally.

If you think many Brits will dishonour the memory of the 50% of Bomber Command killed during operations against "defenceless" civilians... you are doomed to be disappointed.

Anyway, this thread wasn't so much about the suicide bombers as about loopy female politicians licking arse saying "Ooh, I know JUST how you feel" when they clearly don't have a fvcking clue.

[Ned]

Cruddy, I have no idea why you say I don't focus on US attrocities. I do. I have just noted that the Brits still glorify their butchery. A Lancaster flew over the Queen's 50th Anniversary parade, for example. How would you feel if the Germans flew the bombers that blasted Guernica or Coventry in celebration of some German event?

[Drogue]

Ned: The difference is, the Germans were aggressors, the Battle of Britain was defending our island. Add to that the vastly outnumbering of our aircraft, and that glorifies it itself, somewhat.

That Lancaster Bomber flew to mark the fact that we still have a Queen. We have a Queen because we won the war. That bomber was representing the planes that saved out Monarchy.

The Germans don't have a Fascist regime anymore. They don't support the ideals their forefathers fought for. We do. We fought for our independance, our democracy and our Monarchy, and they still exist.

American wars in Vietnam, in Laos, in Cambodia, in Iraq, etc. were not defending the US, they were attacking other nations. That is why it doesn't have the same glory or romanticism. We don't glorify the Falklands, because most of us don't particularly care, because it wasn't defending Britian.

I don't agree with bonbing civilians. I don't agree with those actions in the 2nd World War. However I do think it is different, in that we were fighting for our island, and we weren't aggressors. If they US were attacked, I'd support a US war against them. The US hasn't fought for it's homeland since the War of Independance, which has been glorified by the US people.

The Lancaster Bomber is part of our heritage. Do you think it's glorifing when they fire cannons during the 1812 Overture? They are machines of war. They are also part of our history. If the UK is attacked, I can understand, even though I would not agree, with calls for a war without rules. Likewise with the US. However the US has not been attacked, and has not fought for it's homeland. That is why I decry US attrocities.