Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[halfwise]

Nobody wants them. Israel needs to face up to its responsibility.

Now that they've made it clear that any attempt to wipe Israel off the map will fail, they should see themselves as having a strong bargaining position, ignoring the fact that the people who they are bargaining with hate them even more. If they would integrate them into their society it will make it easier, not harder to stop terrorism. But this means the Palestinians need to unbend as well and not reject settlements. If they can do this in tandem there's hope. But that's a rather forlorn and distant hope.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ What staggers me is that of all the peoples on the face of this planet, you would think that blaming an entire people for crimes, collectively punishing them and singling them out, indiscriminately slaughtering thousands of their civilian population including pregnant women, old and young, and forcing them into a global diaspora in exile robbed of their homeland being wrong and a bad thing to do, would ring a few bells for the Jewish people as something not to do. They of all peoples should be the last conducting this. It's like seeing a child who was horribly abused growing up to be an abuser themselves and perpetuate the cycle. }}

[halfwise]

It's what happens in the Middle East. The journalist Thomas Friedman wrote a book about spending several years in Beirut followed by several years in Israel, called From Beirut to Jerusalem. His thesis was that despite being very two different religions and cultures, they operated by the same rules. He called these "Hama Rules", which referred to the elder Assad of Syria wiping the town Hama off the face of the earth because it contained Muslim Brotherhood rebels. This was seen even by many Muslims as being necessary to maintain order.

It's related to an old story told in the Arab world. An old man was raising a turkey, until one day it was stolen. He told his sons to go find the thief and beat him. His sons said "why do we care about a stupid turkey? The thief was probably hungry." Then when their sheep was stolen they went to their father and said "what do we do?"
"Find my turkey" he replied.

In a dog eat dog world you have to demonstrate fierce retribution or it just gets worse. That's what they are doing, and it transcends any sense of history or compassion.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Well it's better than my Dads version he used to hold to when I was a kid, that humans aren't meant to live in very hot countries as our brains overheat, which is why they are always fighting each other. Certainly not politically correct, or scientifically or historically sound, but when you watch what's going on you can see how in ignorance such ideas take hold. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Makes sense though, the further south you go the angrier people seem to get.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{{ I am feeling somewhat dubious of Israeli current claims of the sexual abuse, rape and murder (apparently often all at the same time) of hundreds of women by Hamas on October the 7th. It's a narrative they have been pushing very strongly in the last few days.
However, when you start to look for the evidence to support this, it all turns somewhat murky.

Now I am not saying rape and sexual abuse did not take place at all, historically they have always accompanied war, that's in no way a justification just a horrible fact of human life.

But for example, under the BBC's piece on it, sub-headed- 'The BBC has seen and heard evidence that Hamas committed horrific sexual violence in Israel' they give horrific descriptions of what they say went on, stuff I am even hesitant to repeat here its that foul, think Jack the Ripper levels of mutilation only unlike Jack these women were still alive when the horrific things happened to them, so the claims go, but the actual evidence bit is, lacking.

The article is full of lines like these which starts to cast doubts on the whole account-

'Several people involved in collecting and identifying the bodies of those killed in the attack told us they had seen multiple signs of sexual assault' - so it starts with second-hand information, hearsay, effectively. Not a good start for 'evidence'.

'One man we spoke to from the festival site said he heard the "noises and screams of people being murdered, raped, decapitated"...To our question about how he could be sure - without seeing it - that the screams he heard indicated sexual assault rather than other kinds of violence, he said he believed while listening at the time that it could only have been rape.'- that would not count as evidence in any court of law. It's more heresay not evidence.

Then there are real warning flags that something is not right here-

'Police say they have "multiple" eye-witness accounts of sexual assault, but wouldn't give any more clarification on how many.'- well that's odd if not outright suspicious.

'When we spoke to them, they hadn't yet interviewed any surviving victims.'- so we are to believe they are claiming all these atrocities, and that they have multiple witnesses, and evidence, but they haven't even spoken to the victims? Not one? Something is fishy here.

'Israel's Women's Empowerment Minister, May Golan, told the BBC that a few victims of rape or sexual assault had survived the attacks'- well that seems rather helpful for the Israeli claims, it happened but everyone it happened to is dead so we are inferring what happened?

'Israel's police chief Yaacov Shabtai said that many survivors of the attacks were finding it difficult to talk and that he thought some of them would never testify about what they saw or experienced.'- talk about getting your excuses in early. So the 'evidence' offered for hundreds of these horrific rapes and mutilations taking place is hearsay, evidence from Israel itself which it gives on a 'its true trust us' basis, and everyone involved is dead or too traumatised to give actual evidence?

No there is something not quite right about this recent Israeli PR campaign, the crimes it details are beyond horrific and some of it sounds not only unlikely but, well what it most reminds me off is the sort of 'eyewitness' accounts that filled London tabloids at the time of jack the Ripper with the most over-the-top horriblest thing they could think of, statements like this one, which due to graphic content I will put in spoilers-

Spoiler:

Really? In the middle of a raid against the clock before the army turned up? And the end bit? As a man I find that a very unlikely thing to happen with such timing. It sounds made up. And most of the accounts given are like this, very, very horrific detail, very, very little if any actual evidence beyond the claims.

Such acts need and demand justice, but justice needs and demands evidence.
But I don't think for the genuine victims this is about justice for them or their families, and a lot more to do with Israel losing the international opinion on their war and losing public global support. This isn't justice, it's just PR. }}

[halfwise]

I have to agree. Hamas was aiming for "righteous terror" - if those two words can be put together - they weren't aiming to paint themselves as animals. The hostages released said they were generally well treated under the circumstances.

Of course we can't deny that those who WERE raped or deliberately maimed (and it likely happened) will probably never be released to tell their tale.

[Mrs Figg]

How come the SNP are taking funds away from housing to pay £370,000 to a mosque in Glasgow with connections to Iran?

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ The implied question is more what did the mosque do with the money? - well it was related to climate awareness and improving housing in those minority communities in line with climate goals. As with all such donations using taxpayer money to charitable groups how the money is spent, every penny of it, is monitored and accounted for to ensure it's being used for the projects it was given. Unless that proves to be otherwise, and so far it hasn't been shown to be, I don't see there is a problem.
It certainly has links to Iran, but on the other hand it's not an illegal organisation, it's a recognised charity and the Home Office do not have it on the blacklist or banned list so legally they cannot be stopped from bidding alongside any other charitable organisation for such funds. }}

[Mrs Figg]

so, all jolly hockey sticks then. you do know that Iranians hold British mothers hostage on trumped up charges?

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ And in Britain we have a small thing called the rule of law, not rule of the mob. If the law has not found them guilty of anything, if the Home Office doesn't have an issue with them and if they are a registered charity, then there are no legal grounds to treat them differently than any other charitable organisation. Or are you advocating our government should have the power to act against groups who have not broken any laws solely on the basis they don't agree with them, or because they don't like their friends? Because that would seem an incredibly dangerous road to step onto to me. }}

[Mrs Figg]

"The mosque in Glasgow has displayed pictures of Ayatollah Khomeini, who called for the death of British author Salman Rushdie, and also Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is Iran's supreme leader and praised Hamas "resistance fighters" in the wake of their terror attack in Israel on October 7."

Humza Useless and his Trojan Horse, mind you Salmond was a buddy with the Ayatollah as well....

https://islamism.news/research/investigations/the-troubling-islamist-connections-of-scotlands-next-leader/

https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/HJS-Iranian-Influence-Networks-in-the-UK-Report-HR-web-1.pdf

The arguments between Iranian exiles and the SAAIC are not abstract debates about the
right to record people in the street. Political protests by Iranians in Scotland have become a
sensitive subject after reports that exiles were being threatened and being told that they and
their families would be killed if they did not stop opposing the Iranian government.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ You seem to be misunderstanding how the law works in Britain Figg. You can't arrest on suspicion, if the law at both local (Police Scotland) and UK (Home Office/MI5) don't find reason to charge them with crimes or declare it illegal then it would be ILLEGAL for the Scottish Government to discriminate against them as a charity. If your complaint is they are getting funding, or exist at all, then you should take it up with the Home Office- Security is not devolved. It's a reserved issue for Westminster. }}

[Mrs Figg]

If you are ok with harbouring vipers in your country, thats your choice. its rather naive to think that any contact with Iran is benign, it is not, they are our enemies.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ I remember people saying the same thing about the IRA Figg. I remember Corbyn being vilified by the right and slaughtered in the press for even daring to talk to Gerry Adams, representing the political wing of the IRA.
In the article you link to, which is highly questionable, it wears its prejudices on it's sleeve at least, it even admits the members of Hamas the SNP has spoken to over the years are all from the political wing- without making contacts and discussions you cant even begin to work towards any peaceful settlements.
We would have no peace in NI if the attitude you are espousing was followed, and in fact the violence in NI was extended longer than it needed to be precisely because of such attitudes regards the IRA as all being the same and all just terrorists.

Secondly, the SNP cannot meet overseas officials without both permission from the Home Office and a Uk government official present to witness and record it. Cameron is right now threatening the SNP over a five minute meeting with Turkey's President at the Fringes of the Climate Conference, as a UK representative had not made the meeting in time. Cameron is threatening to exclude Scotland from ALL foreign office visits and meetings from just that, so it indicates how seriously Westminster takes controlling who Scotland can even talk to and what we are allowed to say, as security and defence are not devolved.
Thirdly the Security Services, MI5 and 6 will be monitoring all such contacts anyway, it's their job. I'm sure they will know long before the day Yousaf declares Scotland his new Muslim Caliphate, don't worry! }}

[halfwise]

A Catholic church would have pictures of the Pope hanging up, wouldn't it? I'd think a shiite mosque would feel a similar obligation, since they are religious leaders. I wouldn't jump to conclusions that it means they espouse the terrorist inclinations any more than a given catholic church espouse the normalization of homosexuality that the current pope supports.

[Mrs Figg]

The Ayatollahs are also political leaders of a country that regularly calls for the death of America, Israel, the UK and the West in general. Consorting with your enemy is madness, and apologists like Corbyn are traitors in my opinion.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Curious Figg, was it treacherous to talk to the IRA while they were still bombing civilians? Because if it was then not just Corbyn is a terrorist, Mo Mowlam, Bill Clinton, John Major, Tony Blair, and loads more all spoke to the IRA behind closed doors in secret, preparing, negotiating the ground for the giving up of armed struggle in return for full democratic representation in government.
Without such 'traitors' we would never have had peace. And if talking to your enemy is treason then the only solution to all disputes would have to be total annihilation of the enemy, genocide, if you are not allowed to negotiate at all.
I don't recall you opposing the Good Friday Peace Agreement.}}

[Pettytyrant101]

[Mrs Figg]

{{ Curious Figg, was it treacherous to talk to the IRA while they were still bombing civilians? Because if it was then not just Corbyn is a terrorist, Mo Mowlam, Bill Clinton, John Major, Tony Blair, and loads more all spoke to the IRA behind closed doors in secret, preparing, negotiating the ground for the giving up of armed struggle in return for full democratic representation in government.
Without such 'traitors' we would never have had peace. And if talking to your enemy is treason then the only solution to all disputes would have to be total annihilation of the enemy, genocide, if you are not allowed to negotiate at all.
I don't recall you opposing the Good Friday Peace Agreement.}}

I fail to see why you keep on conflating the IRA with Iran. It's Totally unrelated politically, culturally and religiously, and a disengenous argument. It was the British governments duty to broker a peace with Sinn Fein because, oddly, we all live on the British Isles, and it was part of our history and our mess. The IRA did not wish genocide on Westerners, and terrible though they were, they were human enough to send warnings by phone before the bombings on some occasions.
Iran, on the other hand is thousands of miles away, and has a religion which seeks death to most of the Western hemisphere, and seeks to conquer us with force and impose Sharia law. Anyone who brokered peace with the IRA did a good thing, those who scuttle off to Iran to broker oil and gas deals, are scum.

[halfwise]

Most of that is just lip service. If Iran really felt the way you claim about the west they wouldn't send tens of thousands of students to western universities. I know these students well; they are not in any way indoctrinated. Most of the educated classes in Iran behind closed doors are drinking, imbibing western culture, etc.

The Iranian religious leadership has gotten themselves into a trap they can't back out of by declaring the west the great evil. Don't you go falling into the same trap in reverse.

[Mrs Figg]

I wasn't talking about Iranian people. I was obviously talking about the regime.

[halfwise]

But you are saying a mosque is part of the regime. I don't think people think about a catholic church as being an active tentacle of the vatican. Yes there's some influence, but if you happened to believe the Pope was an evil tyrant or the like, that wouldn't stop you from supporting a local catholic church that was requesting government money for a local reforestation program. This reaction to a local mosque seems all out of sorts.

[Mrs Figg]

The Vatican doesn't put British mothers in jail for just taking a holiday to Italy. Why all these false equivalences between the IRA/Vatican/Catholics? Catholick churches don't support terrorism, they don't have hate preachers, and they are not affiliated with dodgy regimes.

[halfwise]

It is a fair point that if the Vatican truly was evil we'd likely question catholic churches that associate itself with it. But I think there is still a valid comparison between the two in terms of the strength of the bond between the central leadership and the church or mosque. I don't think a shiite mosque is an arm of the Iranian theocracy any more than I think of a catholic church as a good little soldier of the Vatican. There's just too loose a connection to attribute the sins of the leadership to the local establishments.