Israel - some facts

[DavyR]

P.S. I've just had a look at your blog - "My Early Morning Thoughts" - and there doesn't appear to be anything in it.

[medwaygreen]

P.S. I've just had a look at your blog - "My Early Morning Thoughts" - and there doesn't appear to be anything in it.

 

How trite

[medwaygreen]

I didn't think it was that difficult to understand. The Romans defeated but failed to annihilate the Jews (as did Hitler). Unless you completely destroy every living individual (probably impossible), they will spring up again eventually.

 

The Jews (as is well documented) became spread around the world (the "diaspora") and only after many centuries became a cohesive nation again. By that time, the Roman Empire was long gone and no longer a threat or a presence in the Middle East, so you could say that the Jews "won" by outlasting them as a force to be reckoned with.

 

I was simply pointing out that wars and genocide never "finish" situations as you were suggesting.

 

Who said it was difficult to understand, if the Romans did not as was their desire, annililate the Jewish people they did not defeat them, the point made exactly. we, i am not talking or referring to every living individual or species just one battle, and if you win that battle history tells you it does not occur again ,"a bit like Hitler", which is a very bad analogy, he did not win and most inevitably lost.

Your second paragraph is lost to me.

You bring Genocide into the debate i wonder why.

Yes wars do bring an end to an argument as we can see from WW1 and WW2 IE we are FREE.

[medwaygreen]

P.S. I've just had a look at your blog - "My Early Morning Thoughts" - and there doesn't appear to be anything in it.

 

I have just thought a little more about what you said DavyR,you invaded my Blog just to say in open forum that there was nothing there drawing the inference that that was my intellectual level.

You as an AN poster are a Cad in the true English sense of the word,

You make yourself out to be an all seeing all knowing intellectual which you are not if it is was not for this WWW you would be as you are now a nobody.

[DavyR]

Who said it was difficult to understand

 

You appeared to: "I do not understand creative lyrics its a bit like Elton singing Daniel my brother, Meaningless"

 

"a bit like Hitler", which is a very bad analogy, he did not win and most inevitably lost"

 

Try reading it again - I said that he tried to annihilate the Jews and failed.

 

"Your second paragraph is lost to me."

 

What don't you understand?

 

"You bring Genocide into the debate i wonder why."

 

Because, as I've pointed out more than once, you can only prevent the resurgence of a defeated people by completely destroying them = genocide.

 

"Yes wars do bring an end to an argument as we can see from WW1 and WW2 IE we are FREE."

 

The unfair treaty (Versailles) that concluded WW1 sowed the seeds for WWII, as most historians agree. The ending of WWII paved the way for the Cold War.

 

"I have just thought a little more about what you said DavyR,you invaded my Blog just to say in open forum that there was nothing there drawing the inference that that was my intellectual level"

 

Blimey - I must have lived too long in the North and got used to their rather more robust sense of humour. Firstly, if you provide a link to your blog on your profile, clicking on that link does not constitute "invading" it. The following a comment is intended to show light-heartedness.

 

I suggest you calm down a bit while you get used to the idea that someone may disagree with sweeping statements that you make with very little evidence to back them up. History shows quite clearly that wars do not settle disputes in the long term and that is borne out by the present Middle East crisis. I was reading recently that Argentina are still fretting about the Falklands and would have another go at re-taking them if they thought it would do them any good.

[gozzer]

There have been several posts asking that I contribute my own, personal feelings on this topic. I am well aware that my world view will not be the least bit popular with quite a few of the regular members here and had held off commenting after the initial posting.

 

I just received an email that I liked and that pretty well sums up my feelings. I doubt it will prove too popular and feel free to beat up on me for being such a (insert your own, favourite pejorative term here).

 

.

 

Thanks for replying Newt. As Phil says "a nice story". I think it would make a good C&W song. But didn't Kenny Rodgers have some success with one on a similar theme?

 

Here are some of the lyrics,

 

"Twenty years of crawling was bottled up inside him.

He wasn't holding nothing back; he let em have it all.

When Tommy left the bar room not a Gatlin boy was standing.

He said, this ones for Becky, as he watched the last one fall".

 

As Davy mentioned, the trouble with parables, is that they are told from one perspective and are about one 'event' at one specific time. They therefore cannot be fully compared with any other situation, at another time and place.

 

I am not anti' any nation, but reserve the right to disagree with and question the motives of any actions taken by any nation.

I am glad that at least some people on here recognise the part the UK, USA and the UN or League of Nations, have played in aggravating, prolonging and in some cases instigating fighting in the Middle East.(It's well documented if one cares to look). IMO, this has been done, not with the inhabitants safety, democratic or human rights as a priority. It's purely on the grounds of what it's worth to the power concerned, be it political appeasement to some of its own people, strategic placement of military bases, monetary gains through controlling trade, or an excuse to increase exports (sadly usually armaments), to boost employment and wealth at home. In short, it's all about controlling and manipulating the events to increase their own power. This has always been the case, whether it's been China, Rome, Greece, Spain, France, Britain and now the USA. Unfortunately for some, today it is a different world, in that it is a much smaller place, with many more inhabitants. People are generally much more aware of Global affairs and better educated, giving rise to disenchantment with the modern world, and are much less willing to accept that they have got to change their way of life because some foreign power says it's better for them. They can find out for themselves, that the pretext of bringing democracy and and civilisation to them is just a subterfuge, and that in the past whole races of people have been 'civilised' almost to extinction.

 

The conflict in the Middle East will never be resolved until the World powers (the West in particular), holds its hands up and admits its own short comings, stops trying to play 'puppet master' by holding 'peace' talks and at the same time providing arms and assistance to one or other of the sides, stops using the situation to further their own ends and stops vetoing any UN proposal that doesn't quite suit their aims. Then the UN can go in with a neutral mandate, enforce the flouted UN resolutions (again mainly by Israel). (Strange that UN resolutions only apply forced on certain nations). Then maybe enough of the 'ordinary' people of the area can have their say and maybe common sense can prevail.

 

But all that doesn't fit in with modern 'Democracy' does it?

[corydoras]

William the Conqueror claimed both Brittany and Normandy for the English throne after 1066. In 1152, Henry II married Eleanor of Aquitaine, which strengthened the English hold over much of NW France. During the 100 Years War, various French provinces went back & forth between English and French control, and eventually Britanny was annexed by France in 1532.

 

Some Bretons apparently still feel closer to the Cornish than the French in ethnic origin, and they can understand each other's languages.

Medieval spin methinks.

 

William had been duc of Normandie since the age of 7. He claimed England & Brittany for Normandie, not the other way round. In 1532 Britanny agreed to the union of the province to the Crown but formally its independence did not end until on the accession of King Henry II in 1547.

 

Its true what you say about the Breton, they are after all Celts (Gauls).

[Guest Brumagem Phil]

Nice story newt, but what if the diminutive sailor had ignored the bully and instead gone and beat up the guys wife and kids?

 

You amaze me each post, there's always something idiotic you add, I must be an idiot chattin to one.

 

You need to look at the casualty stats again casey. Tallying it to newts nice story it looks like the sailor is killing most of the pub (and their families).

 

You can keep fishing for a sharp reponse from me casey but you wont get one. You are doing a grand job of putting yourself down without my help.

[DavyR]

William had been duc of Normandie since the age of 7. He claimed England & Brittany for Normandie, not the other way round.

 

Yes, that's a much better way of putting it!

[corydoras]

The conflict in the Middle East will never be resolved until the World powers (the West in particular), holds its hands up and admits its own short comings, stops trying to play 'puppet master' by holding 'peace' talks and at the same time providing arms and assistance to one or other of the sides, stops using the situation to further their own ends and stops vetoing any UN proposal that doesn't quite suit their aims. Then the UN can go in with a neutral mandate, enforce the flouted UN resolutions (again mainly by Israel). (Strange that UN resolutions only apply forced on certain nations). Then maybe enough of the 'ordinary' people of the area can have their say and maybe common sense can prevail.

 

But all that doesn't fit in with modern 'Democracy' does it?

Well said mate. America only likes democracy as long as it likes the party that wins the election.