Gaza under attack yet again.

[DotCommunist]

You're saying these were driven by religion as opposed to events in which religion was invoked?

see above- theres no way William of Orange could have mounted a succesful invasion without the support of the largely protestant population. Theres no way he would have bothered if it hadn't been to use our resources to combat hated catholic france. To say invoked makes it sound like a simple fig leaf for the games of state power and war, it was more than that. So bit of both...

 

[SpackleFrog]

see above- theres no way William of Orange could have mounted a succesful invasion without the support of the largely protestant population. Theres no way he would have bothered if it hadn't been to use our resources to combat hated catholic france. To say invoked makes it sound like a simple fig leaf for the games of state power and war, it was more than that. So bit of both...

That's all fair enough. But he didn't do it because he was a protestant.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

@Belalmd12 Murdered: Abdullah Murtaja, journalist and photographer, killed in artillery shelling on Shujaiya minutes ago.

 

[uk benzo]

You said, in response to my criticisms of Hamas and clear position of supporting secular class based mass opposition, that religion was the most potent unifying force, and you said it in the context of defending Hamas against my criticisms. The logical conclusion would be that you argue for religious organisation in contrast to secular class based organisation, no? Am I being unfair or did you just express yourself poorly?




There's a statement. How exactly is the election result evidence of mass resistance?

Hamas utilise guerrilla tactics in direct contrast to the tactics of mass-based resistance. Are you disputing this?

No, you just have poor interpretation skills .

And re: voting in HAmas, this was an act of resistance against the zionist entity who were pushing for the PA to win the democratic election. Or does mass resistance always have to be physical and result in blood shed?

Where do you get your talking points from because they are sounding increasingly wing-nuttery.

"Hamas utilise guerrilla tactics in direct contrast to the tactics of mass-based resistance. Are you disputing this?" - What the fuck is a mass-based tactic? Sending out the population to be slaughtered en masse? When the PAlestinians in Ghazza are not being savagely attacked by the zionist entity, the democratically elected Hamas appear to perform governmental duties and roles. And when being slaughtered by the army of the zionist entity, they appear to defend the strip by applying guerilla tactics in light of the fact that they do not have the munitions to match that of the zionist entity. What would you have them do?

 

[SpackleFrog]

No, you just have poor interpretation skills

Well, please help me to improve.

And re: voting in HAmas, this was an act of resistance against the zionist entity who were pushing for the PA to win the democratic election. Or does mass resistance always have to be physical and result in blood shed?

The Zionist entity were pushing for the Palestinian Authority to win? Do you mean Fatah? Sure you can term it an act of resistance - but it isn't actually a very significant act of resistance. Why do you think the Israeli state preferred Fatah to Hamas?

Where do you get your talking points from because they are sounding increasingly wing-nuttery.

"Hamas utilise guerrilla tactics in direct contrast to the tactics of mass-based resistance. Are you disputing this?" - What the fuck is a mass-based tactic? Sending out the population to be slaughtered en masse? When the PAlestinians in Ghazza are not being savagely attacked by the zionist entity, the democratically elected Hamas appear to perform governmental duties and roles. And when being slaughtered by the army of the zionist entity, they appear to defend the strip by applying guerilla tactics in light of the fact that they do not have the munitions to match that of the zionist entity. What would you have them do?

If you read any of my posts it will be quite clear that I support the tactics of the 1st Intifada - mass strikes, occupations, marches on checkpoints etc. I think it's fair to say these achieved far more than Hamas's bottle rockets.

I would be less critical if the guerilla tactics of Hamas were effective but surely you have to admit that they achieve nothing beyond providing a very small fig leaf for the Israeli state? At the moment you seem to be defending the idea of Hamas as an effective resistance org, which sounds a bit wing-nutty to me.

 

[uk benzo]

No. We have had battles in the name of religion; we have had no wars driven by religion. There is a huge difference.

Indeed there is a huge difference. Nonetheless, here you go.

European religious wars:
Crusades
The Spanish reconquista

Mid East:
Palestine conflict

And then you have religion-based civil wars.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

We have had wars using religion as a rallying point - actually that counts for pretty much all them. I can't think of any which were primarily motivated by religion rather than greed and expansionism.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Indeed there is a huge difference. Nonetheless, here you go.

European religious wars:
Crusades
The Spanish reconquista

Mid East:
Palestine conflict

And then you have religion-based civil wars.

The Israel/Palestine conflict is not a result of religion, that at least should be clear.

 

[agricola]

We have empires led by religion (Muslim and Christian- what were the crusades?), wars driven by religion, battles in the name of religion.

The Crusades were certainly advertised as being religious in nature, but - with the possible exception of the First Crusade - they make much more sense as a continuation of what was happening in the rest of Europe at the time; ie: small groups of war-obsessed nobles constantly trying to steal other peoples lands for rather more earthy reasons than faith. The same goes for the Reconquista, which saw groups on both sides clothe their greed in religious terms.

 

[uk benzo]

"Why do you think the Israeli state preferred Fatah to Hamas?"
Simple. To counter the main Palestinian political power of that time. We have the converse situation now in Ghazza- The zionist entity are countering Hamas's influence by supporting the PA. Why do you think the zionist state prefers Fatah to Hamas SpackleFrog?

"I would be less critical if the guerilla tactics of Hamas were effective but surely you have to admit that they achieve nothing beyond providing a very small fig leaf for the Israeli state? At the moment you seem to be defending the idea of Hamas as an effective resistance org, which sounds a bit wing-nutty to me."
The guerilla tactics have prevented the zionist entity from rolling in and occupying the strip. They tried it at the beginning of this murderous rampage and were beaten back. Hence the entity uses blanket bombardment from afar.

Sure the Palestinians could all lie down on the floor in the strip in the hope that emulating Ghandi will make the zionists see sense. But for some reason, I don't think that would work in light of the fact that the zionists bomb children in UNRWA schools, the sick and disabled in hospitals and the innocent doing shopping a local street market.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Wait, hold on, the Israeli state relentlessly funded religion-centred groups like Hamas to attack what they saw as the greater threat, from organised secular resistance groups.

 

[uk benzo]

The Crusades were certainly advertised as being religious in nature, but - with the possible exception of the First Crusade - they make much more sense as a continuation of what was happening in the rest of Europe at the time; ie: small groups of war-obsessed nobles constantly trying to steal other peoples lands for rather more earthy reasons than faith. The same goes for the Reconquista, which saw groups on both sides clothe their greed in religious terms.

I don't disagree with you- very typical of the ruing class to fire up the people with a little religious hyperbole to achieve their corrupt goals. But I do think that people physically doing the fighting believed that they were fighting for whatever religion their leaders said they were fighting for.

 

[SpackleFrog]

"Why do you think the Israeli state preferred Fatah to Hamas?"
Simple. To counter the main Palestinian political power of that time. We have the converse situation now in Ghazza- The zionist entity are countering Hamas's influence by supporting the PA. Why do you think the zionist state prefers Fatah to Hamas SpackleFrog?

I'm really confused - you said PA again - do you mean the Palestinian Authority? I think the Israeli state preferred Fatah at the time because they were easier to negotiate with and influence but I doubt they have much interest in Fatah anymore because they have no legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians. I think the Israeli state preferred to encourage Hamas to develop in opposition to the PLO because they recognised that Hamas could act as a figurehead for resistance without ever threatening the Israeli state.

Sure the Palestinians could all lie down on the floor in the strip in the hope that emulating Ghandi will make the zionists see sense. But for some reason, I don't think that would work in light of the fact that the zionists bomb children in UNRWA schools, the sick and disabled in hospitals and the innocent doing shopping a local street market.

I didn't ever suggest some sort of liberal pacifist movement. This is a totally disingenuous response.

I get that you are probably used to arguing about whether Palestinians have the right to self defence. I accept that right unconditionally. But what we're talking about is how Palestinians can effectively resist Israeli State Imperialism, not whether or not its morally ok for Hamas to let off their little fizzbangs.

 

[uk benzo]

The Israel/Palestine conflict is not a result of religion, that at least should be clear.

You taking the piss? The whole ideology behind the zionist entity is that it is a 'Jewish' state.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I don't disagree with you- very typical of the ruing class to fire up the people with a little religious hyperbole to achieve their corrupt goals. But I do think that people physically doing the fighting believed that they were fighting for whatever religion their leaders said they were fighting for.

But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

 

[SpackleFrog]

You taking the piss? The whole ideology behind the zionist entity is that it is a 'Jewish' state.

No. I am not taking the piss. It has nothing to do with religion.

Have you read any of this thread?

 

[agricola]

I don't disagree with you- very typical of the ruing class to fire up the people with a little religious hyperbole to achieve their corrupt goals. But I do think that people physically doing the fighting believed that they were fighting for whatever religion their leaders said they were fighting for.

Some of them perhaps, but there is quite a bit of evidence (in a UK context at least, though I sure the same principle applies worldwide) that the lower classes remained stubbornly independent in their thinking, and went into war either for personal gain or because they were made to, either by circumstance (ie by being attacked or threatened themselves) or because of pressure from their rulers.

 

[uk benzo]

I'm really confused - you said PA again - do you mean the Palestinian Authority? I think the Israeli state preferred Fatah at the time because they were easier to negotiate with and influence but I doubt they have much interest in Fatah anymore because they have no legitimacy in the eyes of Palestinians. I think the Israeli state preferred to encourage Hamas to develop in opposition to the PLO because they recognised that Hamas could act as a figurehead for resistance without ever threatening the Israeli state.



I didn't ever suggest some sort of liberal pacifist movement. This is a totally disingenuous response.

I get that you are probably used to arguing about whether Palestinians have the right to self defence. I accept that right unconditionally. But what we're talking about is how Palestinians can effectively resist Israeli State Imperialism, not whether or not its morally ok for Hamas to let off their little fizzbangs.

Spare me your rhetoric.

The zionist entity picked Hamas to counter Fatah because they had calculated that Hamas-Fatah are on opposite ideological sides of the spectrum, which would result in conflict. It's easier to control in-fighting 'natives'. And for a while that worked.

This mess is multi-faceted with so many different levels of resistance. Take your pick as to which facet you would like to discuss.

 

[uk benzo]

But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

I am allowed to comment on his post, which I found agreeable. Thank you very much.

 

[uk benzo]

No. I am not taking the piss. It has nothing to do with religion.

Have you read any of this thread?

This thread that has repeatedly pointed out the fact that the zionist state is racist because it openly proclaims that it is a Jewish state?

 

[Sirena]

I am not quite sure how the International Criminal Court operates nor who can decide or block what to prosecute but it is good to see that a wave is building up to bring Israel to justice. Though, if Israel is not a signatory, I don't know how that would affect it.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...gate-war-crimes-by-israeli-us-leaders-in-gaza

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-criminal-court-urged-investigate-gaza-crimes

 

[uk benzo]

Some of them perhaps, but there is quite a bit of evidence (in a UK context at least, though I sure the same principle applies worldwide) that the lower classes remained stubbornly independent in their thinking, and went into war either for personal gain or because they were made to, either by circumstance (ie by being attacked or threatened themselves) or because of pressure from their rulers.

I also agree with this.

The religious zealots, from whatever social class, really freak me out.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Spare me your rhetoric.

The zionist entity picked Hamas to counter Fatah because they had calculated that Hamas-Fatah are on opposite ideological sides of the spectrum, which would result in conflict. It's easier to control in-fighting 'natives'. And for a while that worked.

This mess is multi-faceted with so many different levels of resistance. Take your pick as to which facet you would like to discuss.

What rhetoric? If Hamas and Fatah are politically different, it follows that the Israeli state will prefer one or the other. Yes?

The facet I want to discuss is your attitude to Hamas. Or at least it was, now I want to know why you think the conflict is about religion.

 

[uk benzo]

I am not quite sure how the International Criminal Court operates nor who can decide or block what to prosecute but it is good to see that a wave is building up to bring Israel to justice. Though, if Israel is not a signatory, I don't know how that would affect it.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...gate-war-crimes-by-israeli-us-leaders-in-gaza

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-criminal-court-urged-investigate-gaza-crimes

None whatsoever as long as the US is the zionist entity's backer. The ICC it would appear is only for dark looking natives (with exceptions of course) from Continents that are deemed savage.

 

[SpackleFrog]

This thread that has repeatedly pointed out the fact that the zionist state is racist because it openly proclaims that it is a Jewish state?

Yes its a racist state. With a lot of secular Jews in it. That doesn't mean the conflict is about religion. It's not about religion; it's about land, resources, geopolitics and imperialism.

 

[uk benzo]

What rhetoric? If Hamas and Fatah are politically different, it follows that the Israeli state will prefer one or the other. Yes?

The facet I want to discuss is your attitude to Hamas. Or at least it was, now I want to know why you think the conflict is about religion.

To answer your questions.
1. I have zero attitude towards Hamas. They are neutral to me. I am not entitled to say that they are not worthy of governing Ghazza, because they democratically won the elections.
2. Which aspect of this conflict do you want to discuss? (and by using the word conflict, you make it sound like a fight between two parties- in fact it is a racist colonisation project that has consistently subjected a physically weaker side to abject aggression, humiliation and poverty) Do you want to discuss the Ghazza attack or the whole 1948 destruction of Palestine?

 

[uk benzo]

Yes its a racist state. With a lot of secular Jews in it. That doesn't mean the conflict is about religion. It's not about religion; it's about land, resources, geopolitics and imperialism.

We are both reading different pages from the same book. This is what religion has always been about.

 

[SpackleFrog]

To answer your questions.
1. I have zero attitude towards Hamas. They are neutral to me. I am not entitled to say that they are not worthy of governing Ghazza, because they democratically won the elections.

Are you also not entitled to comment on the Tories? What about Likud? They won an election, can you comment on them? I'm really sorry pal, I didn't realise you weren't allowed to voice an opinion on half of this stuff.

2. Which aspect of this conflict do you want to discuss? (and by using the word conflict, you make it sound like a fight between two parties- in fact it is a racist colonisation project that has consistently subjected a physically weaker side to abject aggression, humiliation and poverty) Do you want to discuss the Ghazza attack or the whole 1948 destruction of Palestine?

You used the phrase conflict a few posts back. I'm not sure where the discussion can really go at this point.

 

[quiquaquo]

Zionism has nothing to do with religion? Some zionists may not be religious but the vast majority are be they Jewish or Christian.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Zionism has nothing to do with religion? Some zionists may not be religious but the vast majority are be they Jewish or Christian.

Stay on track - Zionism isn't driven by religion.