# Irish passports used in Hamas killing



## Shawady (22 Feb 2010)

Just wondering what others think of this story.
If Israel's involvement is proven, it is hardly the actions of a country we are supposed to have friendly relations with.
What would the reaction be if agents from a muslim country used false irish or british passports in a plot to kill an israeli national?

[broken link removed]


----------



## RonanC (22 Feb 2010)

I wouldnt exactly say we have "friendly" relations with Israel.

When it is proven that Israel was involved in the illegal passport making and the killing, I can see ours and the UK's relations with Israel becoming even more harder to keep civil.


----------



## Sunny (22 Feb 2010)

The passport thing doesn't really bother me that much. Stolen and fake passports get used the whole time by the good and bad guys. Amazing though to see how the media and polticians main gripe is that European passports were used and not that a country that is supposedly one of the good guys is implicated in sending out hit squads to assasinate their enimies. If Iran had done likewise, we would be invading them. If the US got caught at it, there would be huge anti-American sentitment everywhere like there was after Abu Ghraib. But because it's Israel and you can't criticise Israel without being anti-semitic, we focus on the use of fake passports without looking at the bigger question.


----------



## VOR (22 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> But because it's Israel and you can't criticise Israel without being anti-semitic, we focus on the use of fake passports without looking at the bigger question.


 
+1. You cannot say a word against Israel.
[broken link removed]

I would urge anybody that did not see the documentary on Channel 4 to watch Defamation.


----------



## csirl (22 Feb 2010)

This identity stuff happens all the time with special agents from most countries who have them. Its also systemic in a lot of despotic countries - you often do you hear about terrorists supported by these countries travelling on fake passports and fake identities. I dont think its right - I am a firm believer in everyone maintaining their real identity at all times, but to have a go at Israel over this and not have a go at the 100s of middle eastern terrorists who routinely do this smacks of double standards.


----------



## bond-007 (22 Feb 2010)

I do wonder how did they get the passport numbers. Did they skim them in Israel? Mossad mole working in the DFA?


----------



## DB74 (22 Feb 2010)

My understanding from the British passports scenario is that they are British citizens who live in Israel full-time


----------



## VOR (22 Feb 2010)

csirl said:


> to have a go at Israel over this and not have a go at the 100s of middle eastern terrorists who routinely do this smacks of double standards.


 
There is a huge difference between a terrorist and a country. Although, when I look at the state in question I am starting to wonder if there really is any difference.


----------



## csirl (22 Feb 2010)

bond-007 said:


> I do wonder how did they get the passport numbers. Did they skim them in Israel? Mossad mole working in the DFA?


 
A lot of hotels in mainland Europe seek photocopies of passports of people checking in - in some places its a legal requirement.

I would think that the easiest way to get passport numbers would be to have someone take a job in a hotel and then quit after a couple of days. I'm sure that the photocopies in most hotels probably arent keep in the most secure area - probably just in a filing cabinet in the office or behind the reservations desk. Lot easier than tapping into e.g. DFA.


----------



## Ancutza (22 Feb 2010)

Most interesting for me is the lack of any kind of comment from the Obama administration.  

The existence of Israel and how it behaves itself in the middle-east is always going to ensure that few Europeans can sleep well at night and fewer Americans.  

Zionism not Judaism is the root of the problem....


----------



## censuspro (23 Feb 2010)

Ancutza said:


> Most interesting for me is the lack of any kind of comment from the Obama administration.
> 
> The existence of Israel and how it behaves itself in the middle-east is always going to ensure that few Europeans can sleep well at night and fewer Americans.
> 
> Zionism not Judaism is the root of the problem....



I think the existence of fundamental Muslims who blow up trains is a more of a reason for Europeans not to sleep at night.


----------



## Latrade (23 Feb 2010)

Ancutza said:


> Most interesting for me is the lack of any kind of comment from the Obama administration.
> 
> The existence of Israel and how it behaves itself in the middle-east is always going to ensure that few Europeans can sleep well at night and fewer Americans.
> 
> Zionism not Judaism is the root of the problem....


 
Let's not pretend that this kind of subterfuge is the sole preserve of the State of Israel. Any state that has a secret/special force engages in such covert operations.

The other aspect is while suspicion can and should lie with Mossad, we still do not have full information. Yes the Dubai Police say they are 99.9% sure it was Mossad, but then without any political interference in that statement, the Dubai police force wouldn't be the most trustworthy in terms of "extensive" or "fair" investigations. 

The US did make a statement given the known circumstances and did, in the best diplomatic language possible given current knowledge, speak against the situation.

However, no state can fully admonish Israel just yet until there is clearer evidence as to who was behind it. Then that state would have to be certain it hadn't done a bit of covert action itself in the past.

Just as it's ridiculous that you can't speak out against Israel's policies without being labelled anti-semetic, it's ridiculous that not speaking against something before actual proof is served is seens as being hand-in-hand with some Zionist conspiracy.


----------



## Ancutza (23 Feb 2010)

> I think the existence of fundamental Muslims who blow up trains is a more of a reason for Europeans not to sleep at night.



Agreed.  But then you have to ask yourself what has radicalised these Muslims?


----------



## csirl (23 Feb 2010)

> Most interesting for me is the lack of any kind of comment from the Obama administration.


 
Why would the Americans make a statement? They arent alleged to be involved and no fake American passports were used and no Americans were victims. Its nothing to do with them.


----------



## Ancutza (23 Feb 2010)

> Why would the Americans make a statement? They arent alleged to be involved and no fake American passports were used and no Americans were victims. Its nothing to do with them.



It might merit a mention from them given that their closest middle-east ally is being blamed for an extrajudicial killing in a 3rd party country don't you think?  Unfortunately Obamas White House is doing nothing to reign in the Israelis contrary to the worlds hopes at the time of his election.


----------



## csirl (23 Feb 2010)

Albert Reynolds was involved in a scheme to sell Irish passports to anyone who invested €1m in Ireland and some middle eastern people invested in the Reynolds family business to avail of this scheme. Coincidently an address belonging to a member of the Reynolds family appears on the Dubai "fake" passports. Given that there are approx. 2 million addresses in Ireland, you'd have greater odds of winning the Lotto !!!!!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0223/dubai.html

[broken link removed]

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/a...-burned-by-a-cold-and-cruel-flame-125805.html

Do the Israelis have something against the Reynolds' for giving passports to Arab businessmen? Trying to embarrass him?


----------



## Jim Davis (23 Feb 2010)

Ancutza said:


> Agreed.  But then you have to ask yourself what has radicalised these Muslims?



And what has radicalised Israel? Since the inception of the state of Israel other Arab nations have openly stated and tried to destroy the state of Israel.

The fundamental point is that if the Arabs put down their weapons there would be no more violence, if Israel put down their weapons there would be no more Israel.


----------



## VOR (23 Feb 2010)

Jim Davis said:


> The fundamental point is that if the Arabs put down their weapons there would be no more violence, if Israel put down their weapons there would be no more Israel.


 
This is a simplistic explanation that overlooks the issue of military occupation of Palestinian land.


----------



## csirl (23 Feb 2010)

VOR said:


> This is a simplistic explanation that overlooks the issue of military occupation of Palestinian land.


 
The concept of "Palestine" as portrayed by the arabs in recent decades is artificial. There is no such thing as an ethnic "Palestinian". 

The people in the West Bank are Jordanians who have been abandoned by Jordan. This area used to be part of Transjordan. 

The people in Gaza are Egyptians who have been abandoned by Egypt (wasnt this part of Egypt proper up to the 1960s?)

The elephant in the room is not the question of why Israel restrict these people in crossing into Israel, its why have Egypt and Jordan sealed in 100,000s of their own citizens into unstainable poverty ridden enclaves? Why wont Egypt & Jordan integrate these areas back into their countries, provide the people with the basic requirements they need and most importantly police them. With regard to Egypt in particular, the creation of Gaza is a convenient way of them opting out of policing and administering part of their country. Israel would have no objection to Egypt ruling this area - the problem is that Egypt is unwilling to do so as they do not want to stop attacks on Israel or they are fearful that they will be subject to Israeli retaliation if they are unable to police the area. 

And dont give me the Israelis should abandon their country and move out speach. Whatever about the rights and wrong of what has happened in previous eras, the facts are that the vast majority of Israelis have been born there and lived all their lives there. Clearing them out or killing them all (as advocated by a lot of Arabs) is unrealistic.


----------



## johnd (23 Feb 2010)

csirl said:


> Whatever about the rights and wrong of what has happened in previous eras, the facts are that the vast majority of Israelis have been born there and lived all their lives there.



So why do they all have American accents and behave as Americans?


----------



## Jim Davis (23 Feb 2010)

johnd said:


> So why do they all have American accents and behave as Americans?


 
Irish people talk with American accents and behave like Americans does that make them American or less Irish?


----------



## Jim Davis (23 Feb 2010)

VOR said:


> This is a simplistic explanation that overlooks the issue of military occupation of Palestinian land.


 
It´s a simple fact that shoots down your arguement.

Here are some other facts. No Israeli ever strapped a bomb to himself and got onto a crowded bus or walked into a shopping centre.

No Israeli ever blew up a train in another European city and killed hundreds of people.

No Israeli ever flew a plane into a sky scraper and killed three thousand people.

No Jewish society discrimiates against women and refuses them the right to vote or sends them to prison for having sex before marriage even when the woman has been raped.


----------



## johnd (23 Feb 2010)

Jim Davis said:


> Irish people talk with American accents and behave like Americans does that make them American or less Irish?




I agree some Irish people do talk with American accents - they tend to be very young and trying to impress though for what reason? Practically every government spokesman or woman in Isreal talks with an American accent and it doesn't sound as if they are trying to impress anyone. I accept that the majority of young Isrealis are born in Isreal but their parents were immigrants from the US and brought their accents and customs with them. 

I remember  watching on television young army recruits crying like babies at the funerals of their comrades. Yet, these same young recruits can look without expression at the dead bodies of Palestinian families who car was blown up or home shelled. Its as if they don't see them as humans at all.


----------



## Ancutza (23 Feb 2010)

> No Israeli ever strapped a bomb to himself and got onto a crowded bus or walked into a shopping centre.
> 
> No Israeli ever blew up a train in another European city and killed hundreds of people.
> 
> No Israeli ever flew a plane into a sky scraper and killed three thousand people.



Probably no Arab would ever have done any of these things either if they had not been dispossessed and made aliens in their own homeland.  I find it strange, given our own experience in Ulster, that we should label the Palestinians as 'terrorists'.  Aren't they, after all, a lot like us?

I'll concede your point about the treatment of women by Islam.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (23 Feb 2010)

Jim Davis said:


> And what has radicalised Israel? Since the inception of the state of Israel other Arab nations have openly stated and tried to destroy the state of Israel.
> 
> The fundamental point is that if the Arabs put down their weapons there would be no more violence, if Israel put down their weapons there would be no more Israel.


The fundamental point is, if zionism was curtailed the world would be a safer place. The jewish state constantly ignores and breaks international rules. Most people, other than zionist apologists, have the cop on to differentiate between zionist expansionism and Palestinian patriotism.


----------



## Jim Davis (24 Feb 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> The fundamental point is, if zionism was curtailed the world would be a safer place. The jewish state constantly ignores and breaks international rules. Most people, other than zionist apologists, have the cop on to differentiate between zionist expansionism and Palestinian patriotism.



Is it not a breach of International laws to fly a 747 into a sky scraper or to blow up a train full of people in Madrid? Are there not International laws that prevent women from being treated as second class citizens and being executed merely for an allegation of adultery? Most people don´t know what Zionism is and what is Palestinian patriotism other than telling 15 year old boys to strap a bomb to themselves and perform jihad where 100 virgins will be waiting for them in heaven unless that is you´re a 15 year old girl???

Do you think that fundamental Muslims are endeared to Ireland because of our history with the Brits!? Make no mistake we are all infidels in the eyes of the Koran.

Here´s a question to other posters who are sympathetic towards the Arabs in the Middle East conflict, who would you rather your sister or daughter to marry: an Arab or an Israeli? (apart from the fact that Israelis have more money


----------



## Sunny (24 Feb 2010)

Jim Davis said:


> Do you think that fundamental Muslims are endeared to Ireland because of our history with the Brits!? Make no mistake we are all infidels in the eyes of the Koran.


 
What are fundamental Muslims? 

People don't understand either perspective just like people outside Northen Ireland never really understood the conflict up there either. People do alot of talking and taking sides without ever trying to fully understand. Its not a simple case of the good guys versus the bad guys. There is alot of ignorance and borderline racism in your post.


----------



## nmesisca (24 Feb 2010)

Jim Davis said:


> Is it not a breach of International laws to fly a 747 into a sky scraper or to blow up a train full of people in Madrid? Are there not International laws that prevent women from being treated as second class citizens and being executed merely for an allegation of adultery? Most people don´t know what Zionism is and what is Palestinian patriotism other than telling 15 year old boys to strap a bomb to themselves and perform jihad where 100 virgins will be waiting for them in heaven unless that is you´re a 15 year old girl???
> 
> Do you think that fundamental Muslims are endeared to Ireland because of our history with the Brits!? Make no mistake we are all infidels in the eyes of the Koran.
> 
> Here´s a question to other posters who are sympathetic towards the Arabs in the Middle East conflict, who would you rather your sister or daughter to marry: an Arab or an Israeli? (apart from the fact that Israelis have more money



Arab all the way. Not the shadow of a doubt.


----------



## Yorrick (24 Feb 2010)

Israels mentality is formed by a history of pograms and the WW2 Holocaust experience. The Israeli Army understand that they have to win every war they fight or Israel will be exterminated.
The Arab nations make a big show of their support for PalEstine in words but their actions are different. They  attack Israel and the U.S. in order to distrct their people from the basic facts such as lack of human rights, treatment of women, unequal distribution of oil resources.

Hamas like our own freedom fighters in Sinn Fein are riddled with informers and there is as likely that the assasination was carried out by anti Hamas Arabs as by anyone else.
International military activities by either coutries or organsations is so complicated that any scenario cannot be ruled out.
It could be carried out by another countries agents on behalf of Israel. It could be carried out by Mossad. It could be carried out by some country who wants to discredit Israel.
Thats the spy game.


----------



## Purple (24 Feb 2010)

The notion that the origin fundamentalist Islam is a reaction to the creation and/or existence of the state of Israel or American or British or French involvement in the Middle East, or the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, or the League of Nations Protectorate, or the partition of British mandated Palestine is simply false.
In the mid 1880’s Major General Charles George Gordon found himself under siege in Khartoum in present day Sudan. He was Governor General under the nominal command of the Egyptians as the Sudan was an Egyptian colony(Egypt had gone bankrupt due to the collapse of its bond market and was being run via an Anglo-French duel mandate at the behest of the Egyptian government in order to prevent the international bond holders closing the country down).
After a few years Gordon was over-run and killed by Mohammed Ahmed, a self proclaimed Mahdi or holy man. Gordon was the victim of one of the many Jihads fought throughout North Africa over the last few hundred years. Fundamentalist Islam has existed since the time of the Prophet, just as fundamentalist Christianity has existed since the time of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately. Both have been used and manipulated (depending on your views) to further political and military aims pretty much from the get-go. 

For the origins of modern fundamentalist Islam (in its pseudo-socialist form) we need to go back about 150 years to the collapsing Ottoman Empire. For the origins of the fundamentalist Madras’s in Pakistan and Afghanistan you have to go back to the Last Mogul king of Deli, the so-called Indian Mutiny and the utterly unjustified vilification and blame of the Muslim population of Deli by the British and the subsequent savage reaction by Britain which pushed the Madras (school) system out into the wilderness and away from the enlightened and moderating influence of the Mogul rulers.     

So basically, why not stick to the topic at hand, but for the record, I agree completely with csirl’s post above.


----------



## Jim Davis (24 Feb 2010)

Sunny said:


> What are fundamental Muslims?
> 
> People don't understand either perspective just like people outside Northen Ireland never really understood the conflict up there either. People do alot of talking and taking sides without ever trying to fully understand. Its not a simple case of the good guys versus the bad guys. There is alot of ignorance and borderline racism in your post.


 
Ah there it is, when all else fails play the racism card. BTW who was I being racist towards?


----------



## Capt. Beaky (24 Feb 2010)

Why, all throughout history, has there been antisemitism in one place or another? Simple answer: If you start telling people that god has chosen you and your tribe above everyone else .......... and you do not assimilate, you've got to realise that your delusion will eventually come back to haunt you. And Jim, before you call me racist tell me why the sons of Soloman are not the most popular in world opinion. Not including the US media.


----------



## Jim Davis (24 Feb 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Why, all throughout history, has there been antisemitism in one place or another? Simple answer: If you start telling people that god has chosen you and your tribe above everyone else .......... and you do not assimilate, you've got to realise that your delusion will eventually come back to haunt you. And Jim, before you call me racist tell me why the sons of Soloman are not the most popular in world opinion. Not including the US media.


 
Good to know you're keeping tabs on what the rest of the worlds opinion is.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (24 Feb 2010)

Hopefully it will help you to notice your own Confirmation bias.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Why, all throughout history, has there been antisemitism in one place or another? Simple answer: If you start telling people that god has chosen you and your tribe above everyone else .......... and you do not assimilate, you've got to realise that your delusion will eventually come back to haunt you. And Jim, before you call me racist tell me why the sons of Soloman are not the most popular in world opinion. Not including the US media.



There are specific reasons why anti-Semitism was common in Europe. Notably (in the middle Ages) the ban on Christians profiting from “usury”. In the context of the times usury covered charging any interest on loans, not just exorbitant rates. Because of this Jews were resented and blamed when debtors couldn’t pay their bills (just as bankers are now). The fact that many knights going on Crusades to the Holy land financed their trips with Jewish backed loans and then returned broke also added a religious twist to the equation. Jewish religious laws about cleanliness and marriage and traditions around social contact also led to social isolation. 
In short there are reasons why Jews in Europe were resented by many and hated by some, just as there are reasons why the Irish were hated in England and America (remember the New York Times cartoon showing the drunken Irish ape-man riding on the back of the disgruntled Anglo-Saxon protestant local?). Every minority was hated in Europe through the middle ages (the Cathars in Languedoc France for example) so Jewish people we nothing special in that regard. The reason that they stand out is that they survived their oppression, unlike most of the rest.

There is indeed a reason why European Jews were and are hated but it has much more to do with the ignorance and bigotry of non-Jews than their victims. If in doubt just look at those at the forefront of anti-Semitic movement at the moment; German and Russian skin-heads and the most extreme sections of the National Front in the UK. If you are happy to be associated with these people by virtue of nod-and-a-wink insinuations in your posts then that’s your prerogative but it’s not something that I would wish for.


----------



## DB74 (25 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Every minority was hated in Europe through the middle ages (the Cathars in Languedoc France for example) so Jewish people we nothing special in that regard. The reason that they stand out is that they survived their oppression, unlike most of the rest.


 
And now the oppressed becomes the oppressor.




Purple said:


> There is indeed a reason why European Jews were and are hated but it has much more to do with the ignorance and bigotry of non-Jews than their victims. If in doubt just look at those at the forefront of anti-Semitic movement at the moment; German and Russian skin-heads and the most extreme sections of the National Front in the UK. If you are happy to be associated with these people by virtue of nod-and-a-wink insinuations in your posts then that’s your prerogative but it’s not something that I would wish for.


 
Just because somebody doesn't agree with what the Israelis are doing in the Middle East doesn't make them some sort of fascist neo-Nazi.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> And now the oppressed becomes the oppressor.


 In my opinion Israel has some serious questions to answer in relation to their conduct in the occupied territories but simplistic comments/ views that look at the conflict without taking the whole region into account (i.e. which ignore Jordan, Egypt and Syria) lack weight.




DB74 said:


> Just because somebody doesn't agree with what the Israelis are doing in the Middle East doesn't make them some sort of fascist neo-Nazi.


 I agree but comments which blacken Jewish people worldwide because of the actions of the government of Israel do smack of racism. When accompanied with vague references to some international Jewish conspiracy this is more so the case.


----------



## nmesisca (25 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> In my opinion Israel has some serious questions to answer in relation to their conduct in the occupied territories but simplistic comments/ views that look at the conflict without taking the whole region into account (i.e. which ignore Jordan, Egypt and Syria) lack weight.
> 
> 
> I agree but comments which blacken Jewish people worldwide because of the actions of the government of Israel do smack of racism. When accompanied with vague references to some international Jewish conspiracy this is more so the case.



jewish != israeli


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

nmesisca said:


> jewish != israeli



That will be news to the 14% of Israeli citizens who are Arab Muslims, and the 4% who are Christian (Arab and non-Arab). 82% are Jewish but of them many are secular Jews and many oppose the policies of their government. That's the thing about Israel; it's a democracy where, unlike their neighbours, people are free to voice their opinions.


----------



## DB74 (25 Feb 2010)

I'm sure that's a comfort to those who had their passports stolen


----------



## nmesisca (25 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> That will be news to the 14% of Israeli citizens who are Arab Muslims, and the 4% who are Christian (Arab and non-Arab). 82% are Jewish but of them many are secular Jews and many oppose the policies of their government. That's the thing about Israel; it's a democracy where, unlike their neighbours, people are free to voice their opinions.



I wish I could see your face if another country invaded ireland, took your stuff and confined you to a remote corner of the island.
has happened in the past and you if it were to happen again you would fight with everything you  have. 
partisans in italy and continental europe opposed nazis with all they had, and most of their actions were no different than the bombings we read in the news now.
problem is anyone that dares to say something against israel is accused of antisemitism.
double standards much?


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> I'm sure that's a comfort to those who had their passports stolen


 What's that meant to mean? You are being lazy with the facts and that undermines your points and creates the impression that you have a pre-existing bias.


----------



## DB74 (25 Feb 2010)

No bias here

I just don't think that those whose passports/identities were stolen by "whoever" are comforted by the fact that they live in a democracy

Also, what facts am I being lazy with?


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

nmesisca said:


> I wish I could see your face if another country invaded ireland, took your stuff and confined you to a remote corner of the island.



Are you referring to the initial invasion and expulsion of the Jewish population hundreds of years ago or the expulsion of Arabs from present day Israel in the 1940’s (at the same time as a small population of Jews were being expelled from present day Jordan)?

If, in your opinion, the fact that the initial Jewish expulsion took place many hundreds of years ago makes their subsequent claim on the area invalid then logically you must hold equally strong pro-unionist views and support partition in the Irish historical context.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> No bias here
> 
> I just don't think that those whose passports/identities were stolen by "whoever" are comforted by the fact that they live in a democracy



Where did I say otherwise? 
You are replying to posts with answers to points that were not made. Why not go back and read your posts where you made sweeping generalisations and either back them up with something (anything will do) or withdraw them.


----------



## DB74 (25 Feb 2010)

Where have I made sweeping generalisations about anything?



Purple said:


> That's the thing about Israel; it's a democracy where, unlike their neighbours, people are free to voice their opinions.


 
My post about those being "comforted" is in response to this post


----------



## nmesisca (25 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Are you referring to the initial invasion and expulsion of the Jewish population hundreds of years ago or the expulsion of Arabs from present day Israel in the 1940’s (at the same time as a small population of Jews were being expelled from present day Jordan)?
> 
> If, in your opinion, the fact that the initial Jewish expulsion took place many hundreds of years ago makes their subsequent claim on the area invalid then logically you must hold equally strong pro-unionist views and support partition in the Irish historical context.



what happened hundreds of years ago as you say it, happened without the external influence of other countries such as the US/europe etc. 
truth is we didnt know what to do with them in the 40s and just chose to please the US & others that needed a stronghold in the middle east.
but tell me again whats the difference with the partisans in italy/france please.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

nmesisca said:


> what happened hundreds of years ago as you say it, happened without the external influence of other countries such as the US/europe etc.
> truth is we didnt know what to do with them in the 40s and just chose to please the US & others that needed a stronghold in the middle east.


Is that why when Britain and France attempted to re-take Suez by force it was America who made them back down? You really need to do a bit of reading on the topic before you make sweeping generalisations about Western colonial policy in the post war period. I suggest something on the emergence of Arab nationalism from the early 1800's onward.


nmesisca said:


> but tell me again whats the difference with the partisans in italy/france please.


 Well let’s see, France was a long established and sovereign state which was invaded by another sovereign state. The same is not the case in Palestine. The sole aggressor was Germany. In the case of Israel it is far more complex with a fractured Empire being carved up, historical tensions that date back to pre-Ottoman times, massive emigration, both legal and illegal by both Arabs and Jews into Transjordan from 1880 to 1948, tribal power-plays in present day Jordan, Western guilt about the Holocaust and the cruel dispassion of a Palestinian people who have been used and abused by all of their neighbours ever since.
As for armed resistance, I don't remember reading about the French resistance deliberately blowing up busses full of school children. If you can post information to the contrary then I stand corrected. By the way Primo Levi, the famous author and Auschwitz survivor, was an Italian partisan prior to his capture.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

DB74 said:


> Also, what facts am I being lazy with?


 My apology, I was referring to posts by nmesisca.



DB74 said:


> Where have I made sweeping generalisations about anything?


I would consider "And now the oppressed becomes the oppressor." to be a sweeping generalisation.


----------



## nmesisca (25 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Is that why when Britain and France attempted to re-take Suez by force it was America who made them back down? You really need to do a bit of reading on the topic before you make sweeping generalisations about Western colonial policy in the post war period. I suggest something on the emergence of Arab nationalism from the early 1800's onward.
> Well let’s see, France was a long established and sovereign state which was invaded by another sovereign state. The same is not the case in Palestine. The sole aggressor was Germany. In the case of Israel it is far more complex with a fractured Empire being carved up, historical tensions that date back to pre-Ottoman times, massive emigration, both legal and illegal by both Arabs and Jews into Transjordan from 1880 to 1948, tribal power-plays in present day Jordan, Western guilt about the Holocaust and the cruel dispassion of a Palestinian people who have been used and abused by all of their neighbours ever since.
> As for armed resistance, I don't remember reading about the French resistance deliberately blowing up busses full of school children. If you can post information to the contrary then I stand corrected. By the way Primo Levi, the famous author and Auschwitz survivor, was an Italian partisan prior to his capture.



so if its not a well established and sovereign state that its invaded we just dont give a flying fiddlers? 
you say you dont remember them bombing buses full of kids, still NATO and the US are doing just that. the only difference is that they issue "apologies" after the fact.
btw, Primo Levi was a partisan, from my home town. I met him and spoke with him extensively on the subject.
he showed me the caves in which he was hiding waiting for the invading troops that were transporting weapons through the alpine passes. more than one of them blew himself up attempting to stop them.
my home town was erased from the maps. bombed then burned to the ground.  partisans didnt really have air defense you know.. 
so yeah if it happened again, and for the extent of time its happened in palestine, I would blow up anything I could.
when you dont have a future whats left to live?

ps read up on Nuto Revelli too if you're interested


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

nmesisca said:


> so if its not a well established and sovereign state that its invaded we just dont give a flying fiddlers?


 Israel was created by British when they ran Palestine under mandated from the League of Nations. I am aware that the mandate was a glorified fig leaf but the substantive point is that the Ottoman Empire had collapsed and the victors of the First World War were running the shattered remains of it.  Therefore there was no state called Palestine that was either invaded or partitioned. The West Bank and Gaza were taken by force by Egypt and Syria and then retaken by force by Israel.  In the context of an invasion and occupation who and what are you talking about? 



nmesisca said:


> you say you dont remember them bombing buses full of kids, still NATO and the US are doing just that. the only difference is that they issue "apologies" after the fact.


Why are you bringing NATO and the US into this and since when do they deliberately target children?



nmesisca said:


> btw, Primo Levi was a partisan, from my home town. I met him and spoke with him extensively on the subject.
> he showed me the caves in which he was hiding waiting for the invading troops that were transporting weapons through the alpine passes. more than one of them blew himself up attempting to stop them.
> my home town was erased from the maps. bombed then burned to the ground.  partisans didnt really have air defense you know..


 Well you have me there, I’m not Italian and I was still in primary school in 1987 when he died so even if I knew him I doubt I would have had that much to say to him back then.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

I've heard of Nuto Revelli (wasn't he the Italian army officer who became a partisan?) but I'll read up on him, thanks.


----------



## nmesisca (25 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Why are you bringing NATO and the US into this and since when do they deliberately target children?



last week. they were civilians. including children.
or you want to talk about phosphorus (spelling?) bombs which are illegal but since israel is israel we all prefer to look somewhere else.
bunch of hypocrits.


----------



## nmesisca (25 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> I've heard of Nuto Revelli (wasn't he the Italian army officer who became a partisan?) but I'll read up on him, thanks.



yeah. met him too.
my grandad was a partisan too (I think he was actually in the same groupp as Nuto Revelli.. not 100% sure though). he would have blown himself up every minute of every day during the occupation it was just very difficult to arrange to have as many germans as possible bunched up in the same place, given curfews etc.

anyway back to the passports, you know nothing is going to happen. slap on the wrist. bad israel. naughty naughty ones.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

nmesisca said:


> last week. they were civilians. including children.
> or you want to talk about phosphorus (spelling?) bombs which are illegal but since israel is israel we all prefer to look somewhere else.
> bunch of hypocrits.


 I agree that there is much hypocrisy about Israel from the US and others, just as there is from the other side in the Middle East. While I don't accept that Israel targets children I do think they are far too willing to accept civilian deaths during military actions. That said they could end the whole conflict tomorrow by bombing the whole Palestinian population of Gaza and the West Bank  out of existence. I think the problem (if that’s the right word) is one of perception. Israel sees itself fighting a war for its survival and as such sees civilian casualties as inevitable, if regrettable. In a military context this is not uncommon; the Allies killed somewhere between 30’000 and 50’000 French civilians in the lead up to and during the D-Day invasion, mainly from bombing raids before hand.


----------



## nmesisca (25 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> I agree that there is much hypocrisy about Israel from the US and others, just as there is from the other side in the Middle East. While I don't accept that Israel targets children I do think they are far too willing to accept civilian deaths during military actions. That said they could end the whole conflict tomorrow by bombing the whole Palestinian population of Gaza and the West Bank  out of existence. I think the problem (if that’s the right word) is one of perception. Israel sees itself fighting a war for its survival and as such sees civilian casualties as inevitable, if regrettable. In a military context this is not uncommon; the Allies killed somewhere between 30’000 and 50’000 French civilians in the lead up to and during the D-Day invasion, mainly from bombing raids before hand.



oh i know they accept the deaths of civilians. mostly when they are palestinians though. israel is anything but surviving. they gain terrotory, they have the backing of the US and europe (which sells them weapons!), they know they arent risking anything.
the hypocrisy of the middle eastern countries you are referring to is just fear. if they commint fully to the Palestinian cause it would just backfire on their citizens. they would see the US (or the bully in charge atm) invading with support of half the western world.
who's surviving (barely) are the poor folks that have to act like guests in their own land.


----------



## Purple (25 Feb 2010)

nmesisca said:


> oh i know they accept the deaths of civilians. mostly when they are palestinians though. israel is anything but surviving. they gain terrotory, they have the backing of the US and europe (which sells them weapons!), they know they arent risking anything.


 Israel is a massive arms producer and, as far as I know, sells more to the US than it buys. As for civilian deaths, they spend millions and put their troops in harm’s way to kill their targets when they could just bomb the hell out of an entire area. I don’t accept that they are blasé about civilian deaths but they do accept it as an unfortunate side effect.



nmesisca said:


> the hypocrisy of the middle eastern countries you are referring to is just fear. if they commint fully to the Palestinian cause it would just backfire on their citizens. they would see the US (or the bully in charge atm) invading with support of half the western world.
> who's surviving (barely) are the poor folks that have to act like guests in their own land.


 I don’t agree with that at all. Just look how long it took for the Palestinians to get a seat in the Arab League. Look at how they have been treated by Jordan and Egypt. Look at how they are treated in Jordan and Egypt, the ones are were lucky enough to get in. The Hashemites hated the Palestinians just as much as the Jews.


----------



## nmesisca (25 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Israel is a massive arms producer and, as far as I know, sells more to the US than it buys. As for civilian deaths, they spend millions and put their troops in harm’s way to kill their targets when they could just bomb the hell out of an entire area.



not without raising serious questions from the international community!
its better to kill them slowly without raising much questions and accusing anyone that questions their methods of being antisemitic.

but of course you are right and know better.

interesting reading 
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/IsraelWeaponsManuIndus.html

"The export markets open to Israel are frequently among the world's most unsavory; indeed, to be off limits to the superpowers they often are located inside the very gates of hell. Already under international censure for its oppression of the Palestinians in the territories it occupies, Israel's dealings with the scum of the world's tyrants-including the white clique in South Africa, Somoza of Nicaragua, Gen. Pinochet of Chile, Marcos of the Philippines, Duvalier of Haiti, Mobutu of Zaire, the allegedly cannibalistic Bokassa of the Central African Republic-invariably result in its further exclusion from more "respectable" circles. "A person who sleeps with dogs shouldn't be surprised to find himself covered with fleas," comments the military correspondent for Israel's major daily newspaper."

Chosen people my *** !


----------



## Latrade (25 Feb 2010)

The only nailed on guaranteed thing about the Middle East is that if you claim to understand it and claim that one side is more at fault than another then you really don't understand it at all.

It isn't simple. Both sides have been used as pawns by others. Both sides have suffered attrocities historically and recently. Both sides ignore and take liberties with human rights and treaties. Both sides are held to ransom and forced to live in fear by a small minority of extremists in their ranks who perpetuate the hate and violence for their own needs and gains. Both sides are largely populated a majority of people who are sick of the violence and fear and just want peace. Both sides have a large majority of people who see the solution and compromise but are forced into a war by their government or by their "terrorist" leaders.

The tit for tat who's fault it is just continues the divide. I sympathise massively with Israel, I sympathise greatly with Palastine.


----------



## Husker (25 Feb 2010)

Latrade said:


> The tit for tat who's fault it is just continues the divide. I sympathise *massively* with Israel, I sympathise *greatly* with Palastine.


 
So are you sympathising differently?  Does that mean you're taking sides?


----------



## Capt. Beaky (25 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> There are specific reasons why anti-Semitism was common in Europe. Notably (in the middle Ages) the ban on Christians profiting from “usury”. In the context of the times usury covered charging any interest on loans, not just exorbitant rates. Because of this Jews were resented and blamed when debtors couldn’t pay their bills (just as bankers are now). The fact that many knights going on Crusades to the Holy land financed their trips with Jewish backed loans and then returned broke also added a religious twist to the equation. Jewish religious laws about cleanliness and marriage and traditions around social contact also led to social isolation.
> In short there are reasons why Jews in Europe were resented by many and hated by some, just as there are reasons why the Irish were hated in England and America (remember the New York Times cartoon showing the drunken Irish ape-man riding on the back of the disgruntled Anglo-Saxon protestant local?). Every minority was hated in Europe through the middle ages (the Cathars in Languedoc France for example) so Jewish people we nothing special in that regard. The reason that they stand out is that they survived their oppression, unlike most of the rest.
> 
> There is indeed a reason why European Jews were and are hated but it has much more to do with the ignorance and bigotry of non-Jews than their victims. If in doubt just look at those at the forefront of anti-Semitic movement at the moment; German and Russian skin-heads and the most extreme sections of the National Front in the UK. If you are happy to be associated with these people by virtue of nod-and-a-wink insinuations in your posts then that’s your prerogative but it’s not something that I would wish for.


Although it is 44 years since I sat the Leaving Cert , I do remember learning that anti-jewish sentiment was around in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Purple, when you say "anti-Semite", are you including all Semites or just Jewish ones? Because a lot of Semites have a justified hatred of Jews. Palestinians for example.


----------



## Purple (26 Feb 2010)

nmesisca said:


> "The export markets open to Israel are frequently among the world's most unsavory; indeed, to be off limits to the superpowers they often are located inside the very gates of hell. Already under international censure for its oppression of the Palestinians in the territories it occupies, Israel's dealings with the scum of the world's tyrants-including the white clique in South Africa, Somoza of Nicaragua, Gen. Pinochet of Chile, Marcos of the Philippines, Duvalier of Haiti, Mobutu of Zaire, the allegedly cannibalistic Bokassa of the Central African Republic-invariably result in its further exclusion from more "respectable" circles. "A person who sleeps with dogs shouldn't be surprised to find himself covered with fleas," comments the military correspondent for Israel's major daily newspaper."


The language used in this quote shows a bias and downright childishness by the author. None of the leaders listed above are in power, most have been out of power for decades. None of them were put in place by Israel (it was the USA, UK and France). All of the major powers, and some minor ones like Belgium and Holland,  sold them weapons. Looking at world since the Second World War the country with the most blood on its hands as a result of colonial or pseudo-colonial activities is France, between Algeria and Rwanda alone they are getting on for 1.5 million deaths... and yet France sees fit to lecture Israel about how it behaves. Every state, just like every person, is, to some extent, a hypocrite. Ireland as much as any. That’s why I’m wary of those that stand on the moral high ground. 

Latrade’s post above is excellent. Emotion solves nothing in a complex conflict were right and wrong depend on perspective and what historical period you start counting from. A careful examination of the historical facts and the historical  and current players shows that Israel to a great extent, and the Palestinians to a greater extent, have been pawns in other people’s power games for generations. There’s no reason why the current situation cannot change. Look at Jordan and how it has transformed from an aggressive protagonist to a constructive peace maker.


----------



## Purple (26 Feb 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Although it is 44 years since I sat the Leaving Cert , I do remember learning that anti-jewish sentiment was around in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Purple, when you say "anti-Semite", are you including all Semites or just Jewish ones? Because a lot of Semites have a justified hatred of Jews. Palestinians for example.


Definitions of anti-semite.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (26 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Definitions of anti-semite.


Purple, I had a feeling that you were an old fashioned boy, but, obviously, not this old fashioned 
Ancient Semitic peoples


 [broken link removed]
Approximate distribution of Semitic language around 1 A.D.




The following is a list of ancient Semitic peoples.

Akkadians — migrated into Mesopotamia in the late 4th millennium BC and amalgamate with non-Semitic Mesopotamian (Sumerian) populations into the Assyrians and Babylonians of the Late Bronze Age.[4][5]
Eblaites — 23rd century BC
Aramaeans or Chaldea — 16th to 8th century BC[6] / Akhlames (Ahlamu) 14th century BC[7]
Ugarites, 14th to 12th centuries BC
Canaanite language speaking nations of the early Iron Age:
Amorites
Ammonites
Edomites
Hebrews/Israelites — founded the nation of Israel which later split into the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The remnants of these people became the Jews and Samaritans.
Moabites
Phoenicians — founded Mediterranean colonies including Carthage

Old South Arabian speaking peoples
Sabaeans of Yemen — 9th to 1st c. BC

Ethio-Semitic speaking peoples
Aksumites — 4th c. BC to 7th c. AD

Arabs, Old North Arabian speaking Bedouins
Gindibu's Arabs 9th c. BC
Lihyanites — 6th to 1st c. BC
Thamud people — 2nd to 5th c. AD
Ghassanids — 3rd to 7th c. AD
Nabataeans — adopted Arabic in the 4th century AD


----------



## Purple (26 Feb 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Purple, I had a feeling that you were an old fashioned boy, but, obviously, not this old fashioned
> Ancient Semitic peoples
> 
> 
> ...



I know all that. It doesn't change the fact that "anti-semite" has a clear meaning in modern english just as caucasian has a particular meaning in modern English and yet some caucasian peoples are black (sub-Saharan African). Pedantry alls nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (27 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> ............. If in doubt just look at those at the forefront of anti-Semitic movement at the moment; German and Russian skin-heads and the most extreme sections of the National Front in the UK. If you are happy to be associated with these people by virtue of nod-and-a-wink insinuations in your posts then that’s your prerogative but it’s not something that I would wish for.


As I was saying, it seems to have been around quite a while and not just from middle ages to modern day skins. Surely malicious gossip could not cause so much trouble over the ages? People, for whatever reason, make up their own minds. I'm merely asking if anyone can come up with a non-excitable reason for this sort of loathing up to the start of the 20th century.


----------



## Teatime (27 Feb 2010)

purple said:


> i know all that.


 
:d


----------



## ajapale (27 Feb 2010)

Shawady said:


> What would the reaction be if agents from a muslim country used false irish or british passports in a plot to kill an israeli national?[broken link removed]



What would be the reaction if agents from a European country used false passports to plot to kill people of other nationalities in, say, a south Pacific Island?


----------



## Capt. Beaky (27 Feb 2010)

Apart from Samoans, haven't heard of many Pacific Islanders creating havoc in European countries. And they tend to do it in the scrum


----------



## Purple (28 Feb 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> As I was saying, it seems to have been around quite a while and not just from middle ages to modern day skins. Surely malicious gossip could not cause so much trouble over the ages? People, for whatever reason, make up their own minds.[/URL]



Do you hold the same views about black people and homosexuals? No smoke without fire, eh? What about Muslims, going around in traditional dress and fasting and praying... we Europeans haven't liked then since... well, since we first met them. There are over a billion of them. Are they bad guys too?

I hope you never get stuck in a lift with a black Ethiopian Jew, who’s gay.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (28 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Do you hold the same views about black people and homosexuals? No smoke without fire, eh? What about Muslims, going around in traditional dress and fasting and praying... we Europeans haven't liked then since... well, since we first met them. There are over a billion of them. Are they bad guys too?
> 
> I hope you never get stuck in a lift with a black Ethiopian Jew, who’s gay.


Personally speaking, I hold no grudge against any nationality, colour or creed. However, as a human being with the ability to make decisions about things, I think that a pretty homogenised world would have less strife. If people assimilate, then there is little room for racism. Now you may or may not be aware that in SA and Brazil (to name but two) peoples of lighter skin look down upon those of darker hue. And they are entitled to do that. 
As regards my not liking 'foreigners' ...... maybe wide of the mark. Considering that I was best man at a black/white wedding, one of my best friends is Jewish and I patronise Curry houses on a weekly basis. The latter, I may add, not when the pub has just closed.
One type of person that does irk me is someone who is full of PC guff and constantly takes the moral high ground.


----------



## Purple (1 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Personally speaking, I hold no grudge against any nationality, colour or creed. However, as a human being with the ability to make decisions about things, I think that a pretty homogenised world would have less strife. If people assimilate, then there is little room for racism.


 I agree with you there.



Capt. Beaky said:


> Now you may or may not be aware that in SA and Brazil (to name but two) peoples of lighter skin look down upon those of darker hue. And they are entitled to do that.


 We all have our prejudices, myself included, but that doesn’t make it right. When you say that people who hold racist views are entitled to hold such views do you also think that such views have merit? For example I don’t have a particularly high opinion of the travelling community but I don’t consider my biases to be a virtue. 
I also find it hard to understand that logical and intelligent people can hold strong religious beliefs, it’s  all just different kinds of crazy to me, but unless they seek to limit the freedoms of others because of their beliefs I have no problem with that.



Capt. Beaky said:


> As regards my not liking 'foreigners' ...... maybe wide of the mark. Considering that I was best man at a black/white wedding, one of my best friends is Jewish and I patronise Curry houses on a weekly basis. The latter, I may add, not when the pub has just closed.
> One type of person that does irk me is someone who is full of PC guff and constantly takes the moral high ground.


 So while you judge people as you find then, on the merits of the individual, you have no problem with others who judge people based on race, creed  or sexual preference. How do you square that one?  Are you a “I take people as I find them” person or a “He might be black but he’s all right” kind of guy?


----------



## Latrade (1 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> If people assimilate, then there is little room for racism. Now you may or may not be aware that in SA and Brazil (to name but two) peoples of lighter skin look down upon those of darker hue. And they are entitled to do that.


 
I don't get the point you're making here. Assimilation sounds as if the "immigrant" or whatever is to absorb themselves completely into the culture of the new country. Why? It's not like the Irish immigrants did and that's not a bad thing. The retention of the Irish Culture had an eventual positive impact on where they settled. Boston, Liverpool, Glasgow, to name a few, wouldn't be the cities they are without the stubborness of the Irish to not assimilate.

As to SA and Brazil, why do the lighter skins have the right to look down on darker skins? Is it just their right to hold a prejudice? While true, this doesn't negate a person's right to hold their views in contempt. Secondly the lighter skins are the immigrants and so didn't assimilate. 

This isn't being overly PC, I just don't get the point you were trying to make. 



Capt. Beaky said:


> As regards my not liking 'foreigners' ...and I patronise Curry houses on a weekly basis. The latter, I may add, not when the pub has just closed.
> One type of person that does irk me is someone who is full of PC guff and constantly takes the moral high ground.


 
That's a joke right? Going for a curry means that people are fully accepting of foreigners? 

Why is it PC guff for Purple to disagree with you? You claimed a no smoke without fire position when it came to the historical hatred and persecution of the Jewish people, then hid behind the argument that people have the right to hold racist and prejudice views, but when this is argued against it's PC Guff from people taking the moral high ground.

Nothing Purple has said is PC guff, unless historical accuracy is now PC guff. It just happens to devalue and discredit the views you have put forward. As uncomfortable as that is, it isn't guff.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (1 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> ..........
> 
> So while you judge people as you find then, on the merits of the individual, you have no problem with others who judge people based on race, creed or sexual preference. How do you square that one? Are you a “I take people as I find them” person or a “He might be black but he’s all right” kind of guy?


Yes, it's the former for me. However after working in the Middle East, Africa and continental Europe for over 20 years I took certain things on board when making work decisions. Just as you'd do in Ireland.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (1 Mar 2010)

Latrade said:


> I don't get the point you're making here. Assimilation sounds as if the "immigrant" or whatever is to absorb themselves completely into the culture of the new country. Why? It's not like the Irish immigrants did and that's not a bad thing. The retention of the Irish Culture had an eventual positive impact on where they settled. Boston, Liverpool, Glasgow, to name a few, wouldn't be the cities they are without the stubborness of the Irish to not assimilate.
> 
> As to SA and Brazil, why do the lighter skins have the right to look down on darker skins? Is it just their right to hold a prejudice? While true, this doesn't negate a person's right to hold their views in contempt. Secondly the lighter skins are the immigrants and so didn't assimilate.
> 
> ...


Tell the British government that multiculturism has worked there! When is the last time you visited Harlesden, Peckam, areas of Hackney, Toxteth, Balsall Heath or Southie? Times have changed Latrade. This is how ghettos form. By thinking along your rigid lines you are in danger of getting paradigm paralysis. 
Regarding your ideas about changing the inherent views of non caucasians in Brazil ............ try visiting the favelas of Recife.
The bit about restaurants was not meant as a joke. You don't see many right wing bigots in Curry houses. I've gotten to know quite a lot of the waiters and owners. These people I chat to when meeting them in the street.
Finally, about the single issue bores and PC brigade .......... well, enough said.


----------



## Latrade (1 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Tell the British government that multiculturism has worked there! When is the last time you visited Harlesden, Peckam, areas of Hackney, Toxteth, Balsall Heath or Southie? Times have changed Latrade. This is how ghettos form. By thinking along your rigid lines you are in danger of getting paradigm paralysis.
> Regarding your ideas about changing the inherent views of non caucasians in Brazil ............ try visiting the favelas of Recife.
> The bit about restaurants was not meant as a joke. *You don't see many right wing bigots in Curry houses*. I've gotten to know quite a lot of the waiters and owners. These people I chat to when meeting them in the street.
> Finally, about the single issue bores and PC brigade .......... well, enough said.


 
Sorry, but by making the statement I highlighted in bold, you've completely invalidated your point about visitng Britain. If you were to visit Britain and some of the areas renouned for their curry you would actually see a lot of right wing bigots in the curry houses. It's part of the irony of their stupidity. One well local group of the BNP are known to hold their post meeting meals in the local curry house without a trace of irony.

However, I've a huge experience of Britian having lived there for the first 25 years of my life. I know London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Newcastle, Birmingham and numerous other places would not be the huge cultural centres they are without immigration and multiculturalism.

Multicultrualism has proven to work, what failed in Britain was the well intentioned, but ultimately misguided forcing of multiculturalism. It was the attempt to fast track it via local authority policy that failed, not the concept of multiculturalism.

I have no rigid views and that's an amazing leap to make just from me asking for clarification on a point you were making. You state "assimilation" is needed, but then excuse or seek to justify the view of white immigrants feeling superior to the darker natives. So my conclusion from that is that assimilation is something the "darker" economic immigrants should do, but not the "lighter" immigrants who tend to be part of an invading superior force.

Again, when you make outlandish statements, people will question them. If you're not prepared or able to present a logical argument (beyond what restaurants you frequent) then don't attack the individual making the statements.


----------



## Purple (1 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Yes, it's the former for me. However after working in the Middle East, Africa and continental Europe for over 20 years I took certain things on board when making work decisions.


 What things do you take on board?


----------



## Capt. Beaky (1 Mar 2010)

Latrade said:


> Sorry, but by making the statement I highlighted in bold, you've completely invalidated your point about visitng Britain. If you were to visit Britain and some of the areas renouned for their curry you would actually see a lot of right wing bigots in the curry houses. It's part of the irony of their stupidity. One well local group of the BNP are known to hold their post meeting meals in the local curry house without a trace of irony.
> 
> However, I've a huge experience of Britian having lived there for the first 25 years of my life. I know London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Newcastle, Birmingham and numerous other places would not be the huge cultural centres they are without immigration and multiculturalism.
> 
> ...


The places I spoke of were run down, graffiti strewn, crime ridden areas. Most businesses have upped and left. 
I was talking about Dublin - not Brick Lane. Tell me any of these restaurants in Dublin where skins gather ........ I'd go along to see how they are received.
If multiculturism worked then there would be no need to force it on people. Positive discrimination didn't help much either. Remember Brent council under our Ken ............ or Lambeth council, under Ms Diane - to name a few.
As regards the lighter pigmented peoples looking down on darker skinned - it doesn't always go that way worldwide. You may have seen recently how in the Cape area, indigenous Africans told the whites and coloureds to leave if they didn't like the situation. Presumably, in your book this is OK.
Finally, I can only take from a passage what I see. Surely, as Roy Keane says, "I've got the right to be wrong" - providing that I think I am right . This is something that others, who are high in the pontification stakes, should look into. 
I don't think I've attacked the poster. If you percieve that, then maybe you are a tad oversensitive. Please don't see this as an attack on your blinding enlightenment.
This post is very much off topic.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (1 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> What things do you take on board?


Different nationalities have their strong and weak points. You allocate work in this way. It may not be 100% but, hey, it was not a voyage of discovery in humanities but purely empirical.


----------



## Purple (1 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Different nationalities have their strong and weak points. You allocate work in this way. It may not be 100% but, hey, it was not a voyage of discovery in humanities but purely empirical.


 OK, so now it seems that you don’t take people as you find them, you not only have a pre-ordained bias but you allow that bias to decide what a person is good for even after you meet them. If that’s not the case then why you first two sentences above? In the past it was generally accepted in the UK and USA that Blacks and Irish were good at manual work but couldn’t be trusted and weren’t that bright. Jews were good with figures but no good at manual work and Germans were disciplines and hard-working. Catholics were also thought of as dishonest and lacking a good work ethic by Protestant Brits and Yanks. Generally speaking those perception are now accepted as inaccurate as they are neither logical or rational.
If I was looking for a person in an engineering role I would rather hire a well qualified black Irish engineer than German with a degree in fine arts. That’s not PC rubbish or limp-risted liberalism, it’s simply the triumph of logic over bigotry. 



Capt. Beaky said:


> You allocate work in this way.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPcLPzItOQs


----------



## DB74 (1 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> If I was looking for a person in an engineering role I would rather hire a well qualified black Irish engineer than German with a degree in fine arts. That’s not PC rubbish or limp-risted liberalism, it’s simply the triumph of logic over bigotry.


 
You'd have to be an idiot not to

The question you need to ask is whether you would rather hire a well-qualified black foreign engineer ahead of a well-qualified white Irish one, if both had exactly the same qualifications, experience etc etc.


----------



## Caveat (1 Mar 2010)

I'm guessing it would probably come down to how they came across at interview? Still quite a big part of it.

Purple's call though obviously.


----------



## Purple (1 Mar 2010)

Caveat said:


> I'm guessing it would probably come down to how they came across at interview


 He got it in one! 
It would depend on what experience they had etc.

Anyway, that's not what Captain Beaky said. He said _"Different nationalities have their strong and weak points. You allocate work in this way. It may not be 100% but, hey, it was not a voyage of discovery in humanities but purely empirical."_ That means that he doesn't hire based on skill, he picks based on race/ colour. Maybe he'd interview all the white applicants but the black guys (or gals) wouldn't get a look-in.


----------



## DB74 (1 Mar 2010)

I already said if they had the same experience etc etc!

I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of Irish employers would hire the Irish applicant.

Does that make them racist?


----------



## Purple (1 Mar 2010)

DB74 said:


> I already said if they had the same experience etc etc!
> 
> I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of Irish employers would hire the Irish applicant.
> 
> Does that make them racist?


 No it doesn't but that's not what Capt. Beaky said.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (1 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Different nationalities have their strong and weak points. You allocate work in this way. It may not be 100% but, hey, it was not a voyage of discovery in humanities but purely empirical.


Purple, do you not know what 'empirical' means?


----------



## Purple (1 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Purple, do you not know what 'empirical' means?



'Empirical' - Relying on or derived from observation or experiment, i.e. not theoretically based.
In the case of your post _"Different nationalities have their strong and weak points. You allocate work in this way. It may not be 100% but, hey, it was not a voyage of discovery in humanities but purely empirical."_ it can only mean that in your experience the generality of national characteristics that you have observed allows you to pre-judge people you meet from those nations, prejudicing your view of the work to which they are suited. 


… do you know what ‘empirical’ means?


----------



## Capt. Beaky (1 Mar 2010)

Cannot answer you at the mo as am watching Ch 4 Dispatches. Methinks it might be suitable viewing for your good self


----------



## Capt. Beaky (1 Mar 2010)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical But Old Mr. Webster, New Oxford, Longmans, New Cambridge, EB et al could explain it in a monosyllable - 'experience' ......... To me 'empirical' is what you get from experience. Not theory, EXPERIENCE. Do you hear me down there! Didn't see any skins down around Tower Hamlets on Dispatches. Did you?
Now please give this post back to the OP - am developing a slight headache.


----------



## Purple (2 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical But Old Mr. Webster, New Oxford, Longmans, New Cambridge, EB et al could explain it in a monosyllable - 'experience' ......... To me 'empirical' is what you get from experience. Not theory, EXPERIENCE. Do you hear me down there! Didn't see any skins down around Tower Hamlets on Dispatches. Did you?
> Now please give this post back to the OP - am developing a slight headache.



So “In my experience those blacks can’t be trusted” is a legitimate reason not to hire black people. In fact following your logic as long as a comment is prefaced with “In my experience” you can pretty much say what you like.  Thankfully the law disagrees with you.

I’m not a fan of collectivism, be it in the form of socialism, religion or racism. I believe in the rights and responsibilities of the individual  and I am in favour of laws that facilitate the individual thriving or failing based on their own actions. Therefore I am against racism, or any other form of bigotry that impedes any individual due to preconceptions about what their abilities might be.  

By the way, there are many reasons why particular ethnic groups become ghettoised. In some cases it has to do with their own racism as much as any cultural, educational or economic barriers, but only a simpleton would suggest it has anything to do with the amount of melanin in their skin, the shape of their nose, or the geographic location of their birth.


----------



## Jim Davis (2 Mar 2010)

Lads, this thrad has descened into drivel. Capt Beaky is a wind up merchant and Purple has fallen for the bait. Let it go.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (2 Mar 2010)

Jim Davis said:


> Lads, this thrad has descened into drivel. Capt Beaky is a wind up merchant and Purple has fallen for the bait. Let it go.


Another paroxysmal rush to judgement!


----------



## Jim Davis (2 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Another paroxysmal rush to judgement!


 
Quoting words from the dictionary and shoving them into sentences does not make you more intelligent. Better to be silent and thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (2 Mar 2010)

Yaweh, I've been rumbled . (Note, all these words can be found in most dictionaries).


----------



## Purple (2 Mar 2010)

Jim Davis said:


> Lads, this thrad has descened into drivel. Capt Beaky is a wind up merchant and Purple has fallen for the bait. Let it go.


 You might well be right.


----------



## Purple (2 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Another paroxysmal rush to judgement!


 Where was the other one?


----------



## Capt. Beaky (2 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> So “In my experience those blacks can’t be trusted” is a legitimate reason not to hire black people. In fact following your logic as long as a comment is prefaced with “In my experience” you can pretty much say what you like. Thankfully the law disagrees with you. ...........


.
If I had't read the earlier posts I would have assumed that you were quoting a poster by your use of quotation marks. So, is that's not a rush to judgement ......... by insinuation? Am merely trying to show from one of your posts as I don't need any more inverted Pharasees chasing me. However, if you've got the time to trawl through earlier posts - in an unbiased fashion - you'll know what I mean.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (2 Mar 2010)

Jim Davis said:


> ........... Capt Beaky is a wind up merchant and Purple has fallen for the bait. ......


Where's the other one? Jeez, you have two for the price of one in this post


----------



## Purple (2 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> .
> If I had't read the earlier posts I would have assumed that you were quoting a poster by your use of quotation marks. So, is that's not a rush to judgement ......... by insinuation? Am merely trying to show from one of your posts as I don't need any more inverted Pharasees chasing me. However, if you've got the time to trawl through earlier posts - in an unbiased fashion - you'll know what I mean.



Why not try answering the last few posts?
I'm trying to understand how pre-judging a race of people based on your experience doesn't just mean that your experience has made you racist and if you think it is OK for others to do the same.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (2 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> Why not try answering the last few posts?
> I'm trying to understand how pre-judging a race of people based on your experience doesn't just mean that your experience has made you racist and if you think it is OK for others to do the same.


Not wanting to get embroiled further ......... lets say, if I had to pick 15 gaa football players under 16 years and, on the blind, had to choose from Kilkenny or Kerry ........ afraid I'd have to go for the latter. Kinda empirical, if you get my drift! If, on the other hand, I had to pick 15 gaa hurlers under 16, and the same conditions applied ....... then I'd choose the former. I could be totally wrong with the results but, the idea suggests that I had reason to follow my instinct. Was afraid to mention nationalities lest I appear racist. In advance I apologise to Kilkenny football aficionados (sorry about the 11 letter word Jim - Googling will explain) and Ditto for Kerry hurlers. In fact to anyone that gets miffed by my presumptions. And I apologise to myself for ever getting involved in this one


----------



## Purple (2 Mar 2010)

Capt. Beaky said:


> Not wanting to get embroiled further ......... lets say, if I had to pick 15 gaa football players under 16 years and, on the blind, had to choose from Kilkenny or Kerry ........ afraid I'd have to go for the latter. Kinda empirical, if you get my drift! If, on the other hand, I had to pick 15 gaa hurlers under 16, and the same conditions applied ....... then I'd choose the former. I could be totally wrong with the results but, the idea suggests that I had reason to follow my instinct. Was afraid to mention nationalities lest I appear racist. In advance I apologise to Kilkenny football aficionados (sorry about the 11 letter word Jim - Googling will explain) and Ditto for Kerry hurlers. In fact to anyone that gets miffed by my presumptions. And I apologise to myself for ever getting involved in this one



No offense, but that's utter nonsense and has nothing to do with what you said earlier. You never said anything about employing people "on the blind".


----------



## Capt. Beaky (2 Mar 2010)

OK then. If colleagues, who had earlier experience in this field, had a word in my ear or if I had just seen a few players from both sides perform a few times I could make an educated decision. The first example would be 'educated', because I was trusting my own judgement in listening and noting his advice. This is as close as I can come to explaining what I mean.


----------



## Ancutza (2 Mar 2010)

Having been  out of this discussion for a few days due to work commitments I've just read back thro' the whole thread.  It seems that, squabbling aside, 2 camps have emerged.  Those whom, like myself, deem the use of forged Irish passports by a foreign power in the murder of an individual as wholely unacceptable and those who seek to be apologists for it.

I hope (although I doubt) that the Irish government will be as tenacious as the British government in seeking to get to the bottom of it and apprehend the culprits from whatever power they stem.

State your case gentlemen!  Is it acceptable or not?  A 'yes' or 'no' answer will suffice.  After that we can debate what should be done about it given that it happened.

My own view...It's not acceptable and the utmost should be done to bring the culpable parties to justice and jail them.


----------



## Chocks away (2 Mar 2010)

NO. Although did not get involved in discussion watched it develop into Arab v Israel lines.


----------



## Latrade (3 Mar 2010)

Ancutza said:


> Having been out of this discussion for a few days due to work commitments I've just read back thro' the whole thread. It seems that, squabbling aside, 2 camps have emerged. Those whom, like myself, deem the use of forged Irish passports by a foreign power in the murder of an individual as wholely unacceptable and those who seek to be apologists for it.


 
I think the two camps were more along the lines of it's not accpetable, but the fact that it was Israel involved made it even more unacceptable or such covert activities are not the sole preserve of Israel. 

I still think relying on the "confidence" of the Dubai Police as to who was involved is pushing it a bit. Having said that, I'm inclined to also agree it does have the touch of official covert operations.

Anyway, my view is: No it isn't acceptable...if you get caught doing it. 

If only so it gives John Le Carre some more material and an opportunity to get back on form.


----------



## Purple (3 Mar 2010)

I’m not happy with Irish passports being used by agents of any foreign power for covert operations. That said, in the real world these things happen.


----------



## DB74 (3 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> I’m not happy with Irish passports being used by agents of any foreign power for covert operations. *That said, in the real world these things happen*.


 
What exactly do you mean by the statement in bold?


----------



## Purple (3 Mar 2010)

DB74 said:


> What exactly do you mean by the statement in bold?



Just that; in the real world secret service operatives from different countries use passports from other countries when travelling under a false identity. The USA does it, The UK does it, France does it, Israel does it etc. I’m sure all other major powers do it as well. It would be great if it didn’t happen but it does. Nobody is singling out us, we are just a small innocuous country with no secret service and bugger all clout internationally so by using an Irish passport there’s the double benefit that it is a good low profile flag to travel under and if they get caught there’s very little we can do about it.

I’m not happy about it but there’s not a lot we can do about it.


----------



## nmesisca (3 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> Just that; in the real world secret service operatives from different countries use passports from other countries when travelling under a false identity. The USA does it, The UK does it, France does it, Israel does it etc. I’m sure all other major powers do it as well. It would be great if it didn’t happen but it does. Nobody is singling out us, we are just a small innocuous country with no secret service and bugger all clout internationally so by using an Irish passport there’s the double benefit that it is a good low profile flag to travel under and if they get caught there’s very little we can do about it.
> 
> I’m not happy about it but there’s not a lot we can do about it.



so.. everything is good and well. I take it it wouldnt be a problem if this was done by an arab country too then?


----------



## sunrock (3 Mar 2010)

Woke up in the middle of the night last night and watched Milleband the U.K. foreign secretary on HARDTALK.The man is slippery and talks like a textbook and anyway he called in the Israeli diplomat who denied all knowledge and of course he can`t criticise Israel untill all the facts are known.
He was also quizzed on the U.K. links to torture be some U.K. agents being in Guantanamo interviewing British detainees and associations also with less savoury regimes.His answers are that the U.K. have to work with all regimes to uphold security at home and abroad and to uphold human rights in the face of the no 1 threat which is of course terrorism. Anyway you get the gist.
My point is that there will be absolutely no sanction taken against Israel . The P.R. people have all the textbook answers ready for the politicians.
We don`t condone the killing.
We don`t condone the fraudelent use of british or irish passports.
We are awating a response from Israel and won`t rush to judgement
etc etc
In a way this has been a masterstroke by israel secret services and no action will be taken against them apart from the P.R. responses of politicians.


----------



## Purple (3 Mar 2010)

nmesisca said:


> so.. everything is good and well. I take it it wouldnt be a problem if this was done by an arab country too then?



It would be the same in moral terms if any democracy did it. That doesn't make it right by the way.


----------

