Today I'm angry about.....

[TANGODANCER]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

When and where was that, Tango?

Oh, I'm sure if you put your mind to it you can see what I'm saying without me explaining.

[William the White]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

When and where was that, Tango?

Oh, I'm sure if you put your mind to it you can see what I'm saying without me explaining.

OK, putting my mind to it... There was hardly any time in the history of monotheism when the land (any land blessed with the one god revelation) was not held in thrall to various laws of their God or interpretations thereof... Most often these were legal obligations, and, where they weren't, they were cultural imperatives. They were enforced pretty rigorously, with prisons and persecutions and tortures and executions and wars...

I suspect you mean that people should be allowed religious freedom and operate with tolerance in their response to those who might differ - which is certainly closer to Christ's message than burning heretics, and a much better idea, I agree... And has hardly ever existed in the two millenia since the first appearance of the son of god...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

So do they have the right to fire rockets and mortars against military targets in Israel? Do they have the right to use military force to resist the blockade? If they have the capacity do they have the right to sink Israeli ships trying to enforce that blockade?

Yes, it's a horrible business isn't it, this war stuff?

I suspect when people do come down on the Israeli side, it's because their Hamas opponents describe a peaceful solution as being "religiously forbidden and politically inconceivable".

I've no sympaty for Hamas ideology but could you source that quotation for me?

It seems it's not a Hamas quotation, but somebody else paraphrasing the Hamas stance... apologies.

It's probably not unfair to say that Hamas cannot conceive of a peaceful two state solution though, is it?

[William the White]

So do they have the right to fire rockets and mortars against military targets in Israel? Do they have the right to use military force to resist the blockade? If they have the capacity do they have the right to sink Israeli ships trying to enforce that blockade?

Yes, it's a horrible business isn't it, this war stuff?

I suspect when people do come down on the Israeli side, it's because their Hamas opponents describe a peaceful solution as being "religiously forbidden and politically inconceivable".

I've no sympaty for Hamas ideology but could you source that quotation for me?

It seems it's not a Hamas quotation, but somebody else paraphrasing the Hamas stance... apologies.

It's probably not unfair to say that Hamas cannot conceive of a peaceful two state solution though, is it?

I think we need to distinguish rhetoric and possibility... As the bish said earlier, think of Paisley and 'no surrender'... I'd urge you to allow yourself the thought that the current players in Israel are the ones who dread a two-state solution...

[Prufrock]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

When and where was that, Tango?

Oh, I'm sure if you put your mind to it you can see what I'm saying without me explaining.

Really? I wouldn't say there ever was such a time. 'There should be a time' I would definitely agree with, but the idea there ever was....

[Prufrock]

So do they have the right to fire rockets and mortars against military targets in Israel? Do they have the right to use military force to resist the blockade? If they have the capacity do they have the right to sink Israeli ships trying to enforce that blockade?

Yes, it's a horrible business isn't it, this war stuff?

I suspect when people do come down on the Israeli side, it's because their Hamas opponents describe a peaceful solution as being "religiously forbidden and politically inconceivable".

I've no sympaty for Hamas ideology but could you source that quotation for me?

It seems it's not a Hamas quotation, but somebody else paraphrasing the Hamas stance... apologies.

It's probably not unfair to say that Hamas cannot conceive of a peaceful two state solution though, is it?

Israel-Palestine is always a tricky question. I never understand the way it is presented as if one should pick a side. My own general views are that:

I think the Palestinians have got a very unfair deal. They had their land, then it was taken away and occupied, and since then they have had struggles on one level for their homes, and on others for the right for control over their own laws, and even for the freedom to move about and to reasonable human conditions. I fully see their contention, particularly when they have no state of their own.

However on the other hand I also see the case from the Israeli people's point of view. I have a strong dislike of the actions of the Israeli government. One can do so without 'choosing palestine' as is often hinted. They both have valid claims to live there. Any idea of 'sinking the Israeli nation' is as deplorable to me as any retaliatory Israeli government idea.

I just hate the idea one should choose a side, but what it comes down to for me is; The Palestinian 'side' is often signified by Hamas. A terrorist organisation, which most people, like any terrorist organisation, would condemn. They do not represent the Palestinian whole. I've met two Palestinians, who admittedly were students in London, so fairly moderate one could assume, but they didn't seek to destroy Israel and all the Jews, they just wanted a country to call their own. The Israeli government on the other hand has a mandate to govern Israel. They aren't a terrorist organisation, they are a member of the global community. Whenever it comes up, the typical Israeli response reminds me of that early West Wing episode, 'A proportional response'. That is the responsibility which comes with that power. Most neutrals, and most moderates on both sides would, I think, agree that the only viable step towards any sort of a loose freedom, even just a lessening of tension is the creation of certain, autonomous Palestinian areas. Given the power they wield, that card is in the Israeli hands. Not to say they should just give in to terrorists, or even every demand of the Palestinian people, but they need to stop trying to fight fire with fire, and be more reasonable to the fact that both sides, when they aren't killing indiscriminately, have valid points.

[CAPSLOCK]

The Israeli actions were understandable but indefensible

Like many other acts carried out by Israel over the years

Sadly, The Arabs can't claim any high ground, cos their role in all this is nowt to write home about, either

It seems strange that cos the UN have spoken, Israel should obey, when the irony is the Arabs don't want to respect the UN

Can't say I blame 'em, to be honest, cos that is one weak lily livered outfit

[William the White]

Pru - would you run me through your thinking that Hamas is a 'terrorist' group... And could you let me know if in your estimation that's ALL it is?

And how do you account for Hamas winning two elections in Gaza?

And how should the international comunity respond to this, in your view?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The Israeli actions were understandable but indefensible

Like many other acts carried out by Israel over the years

Sadly, The Arabs can't claim any high ground, cos their role in all this is nowt to write home about, either

It seems strange that cos the UN have spoken, Israel should obey, when the irony is the Arabs don't want to respect the UN

Can't say I blame 'em, to be honest, cos that is one weak lily livered outfit

I'm more of the view that the Israeli actions, step by step, were defensible (once you accept the reality of the fact that the blockade is in place, whatever the longer term view of its desirability or even defensibility), but not understandable - i.e. they were incomprehensibly stupid.

I do believe that ship was full of provocateurs, spoiling for a fight - for me the biggest surprise is that the Israeli forces played their part so obligingly. For me, it was an operational mistake that got out of hand, not necessarily one of policy. It seems the once respected Israeli army can't touch anything without it turning to shit these days.

Anyway, ironic wasn't it that the ships sailed from from Turkish Cyprus - how do the Turks, who lord over and oppress the Kurds, think they have some moral high ground?

[thebish]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

When and where was that, Tango?

even if he could name such a time - it would be irrelevant, as this is NOT a religious war or a religious conflict - however much religios smoke is pumped around it.

[William the White]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

When and where was that, Tango?

even if he could name such a time - it would be irrelevant, as this is NOT a religious war or a religious conflict - however much religios smoke is pumped around it.

Agreed, bish. Though the 'arguments' are often proposed in religious form and religious language, so disentangling the issues is far from easy.

[2399]

I bought a Postman Pat DVD for my 6 month old...
AND IT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL SERIES

[Puskas]

They remade Postman Pat?

Why?

I blame Hamas, and will henceforth avoid using any chickpea-based spread.

[hisroyalgingerness]

coming back from 10 days hol and 10 days of taping buggered because the BT box is...well, buggered

[Lord Kangana]

People who go on holiday and give a sh*t about whats on the goggle box while they're away.

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

[TANGODANCER]

There was a time when religion just meant believing in your God and not using it to make your own laws.

When and where was that, Tango?

even if he could name such a time - it would be irrelevant, as this is NOT a religious war or a religious conflict - however much religios smoke is pumped around it.

Agreed, bish. Though the 'arguments' are often proposed in religious form and religious language, so disentangling the issues is far from easy.

Without going too deeply and starting yet another ban-able religious debate, it's never the common people (as I stated earlier) but he power-hungry and land-grabbing leaders who veer religion away from its meaning and use God as a means to make their own rules. ( Christianity and the Catholic Church no less guilty than any one else, granted). The Ten Commandments are about he most sensible guidelines for peace and righteousness, the most important of which is "Thou shalt not kill". The rest is the said leaders making their own set of commandments and saying God wills it.

[Lord Kangana]

On the contrary, history wouldn't be what it is if said leaders were without enough people to believe whatever nonsense they told them.

[TANGODANCER]

On the contrary, history wouldn't be what it is if said leaders were without enough people to believe whatever nonsense they told them.

Not sure why it's contrary LK, more the way of the world. What happened with the Crusades? Did the then Pope and the French king really care about having religious access to Jerusalem, or were they actually desperate in trying to maintain armies and power when their funds had run out? Answer, get them out of the way and send them on a religious crusade with promises of riches beyond imaginaton (of which they'd take the major cuts) and tell them God wills it (yet again). Or have them stay home with nothing to do, unpaid and causing all sorts of havoc on home turf? No contest.

[Lord Kangana]

Of course, this wouldn't have happened if enough people had said "what a load of nonsense".

[hisroyalgingerness]

People who go on holiday and give a sh*t about whats on the goggle box while they're away.

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

Bastard