silkbreeze
New Member
grace, strength, humour, wisdom
Posts: 273
|
Post by silkbreeze on Jan 28, 2009 12:35:58 GMT
is it perhaps a sad irony that the solider is a bedouin
|
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Jan 28, 2009 12:48:06 GMT
Just a reminder that Adolph Hitler too was "Elected Democratically". llilly Are you saying that because you are an ignorant clod or is it deliberately dishonest? Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenberg. |
|
avieder
New Member
never lie
Posts: 8,871
|
Post by avieder on Jan 28, 2009 12:49:36 GMT
Well at least you managed to nail one part , you are correct Israel is responsible for the rise of Hamas . For your furthur pursual In those early days Hamas enjoyed a strangely cordial relationship with Israel which was then more concerned about its traditional foe, Fatah, and gave tacit support to Hamas on the grounds that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Fatah dealt with Hamas as it did with all of its other rivals. Fatah security officers arrested and tortured Hamas leaders confident in the belief that Fatah’s monopoly on power could never be challenged. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537001/Why-Fatah-and-Hamas-hate-each-other.htmlRe #56. a nice summary since Hamas was formed. Prior to its formation it was a composite of young terrorists led and organized by Fatah itself or any of its clonies who could serve as finance channels. Something like USA - El Qaida. Mind you, after Hamas took power in Gaza there were quite a few people, including myself, that thought that Hamas was a better partner than Fatah because they "can deliver". Later I changed my mind as I learned of the way they fit into the International Fundamentalist Islam,Terror machine |
|
avieder
New Member
never lie
Posts: 8,871
|
Post by avieder on Jan 28, 2009 13:46:00 GMT
The final line is that Israel acts only in retaliation and responce to attacks on its civilians. avi eder This is drivel of the highest quality, considering the subject of the thread is about a revenge raid by the IDF for the death of a soldier. No, stupid, the IDF attack because they broke the cease fire. If the cease fire is broken then they will shoot those rockets. Even then, only the perpetrators of that ambush were hit. That probably proved to the Hamas that we KNOW who does what and can hit precisely. It seems to have worked..... |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Jan 28, 2009 14:44:43 GMT
If the cease fire is broken then they will shoot those rockets.
Even then, only the perpetrators of that ambush were hit.
That probably proved to the Hamas that we KNOW who does what and can hit precisely. So, you have slithered over to another position:-Israel really doesn't care about the death of one of it's soldiers (since it only retaliates when civilians are hit). It's just legalistic indignation about a breach of the ceasefire. In the incident raised by the thread no rocket was involved but they shot back at rockets, although the report says the IDF shot at people. Although they didn't even know there was an explosive device Israel knew who planted it, even though they didn't know it had been planted (unless they deliberately sent their soldiers to be blown up by the device). The report says a farmer was killed and a militant on a motorcycle was hit and you know by clairvoyance that the IDF knows by unknown means these were the people who did although they didn't know they were doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Jan 28, 2009 14:50:42 GMT
If anyone is guilty of slithering it's you Bertrus.
|
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Jan 28, 2009 16:18:15 GMT
Just a reminder that Adolph Hitler too was "Elected Democratically". llilly Are you saying that because you are an ignorant clod or is it deliberately dishonest? Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenberg. We can't all be geniuses and legends in our own minds like you Aldy/Bert. It's true he was appointed by Hndenberg but only after his Nazi party won the largest number of seats in the Reichstag. www.fff.org/freedom/fd0403a.aspThe July 31, 1932, election produced a major victory for Hitler’s National Socialist Party. The party won 230 seats in the Reichstag, making it Germany’s largest political party, but it still fell short of a majority in the 608-member body.
On the basis of that victory, Hitler demanded that President Hindenburg appoint him chancellor and place him in complete control of the state. |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Jan 28, 2009 18:05:24 GMT
It's true he was appointed by Hndenberg but only after his Nazi party won the largest number of seats in the Reichstag. Why don't you actually look at the facts before offering us your pro-mass-murderer nonsense. It's like the American system. The elections for Chancellor and for Parliament are separate. Hitler stood for Chancellor and lost. So, he didn't become Chancellor by winning the election but because he was appointed by Hindenberg without being voted in. Also, although the Nazis were the largest party, they had no overall majority of seats and could not have democratically ruled alone. |
|
avieder
New Member
never lie
Posts: 8,871
|
Post by avieder on Jan 28, 2009 21:00:46 GMT
It's true he was appointed by Hndenberg but only after his Nazi party won the largest number of seats in the Reichstag. Why don't you actually look at the facts before offering us your pro-mass-murderer nonsense. It's like the American system. The elections for Chancellor and for Parliament are separate. Hitler stood for Chancellor and lost. So, he didn't become Chancellor by winning the election but because he was appointed by Hindenberg without being voted in. Also, although the Nazis were the largest party, they had no overall majority of seats and could not have democratically ruled alone. Why don't you actually look at the facts before offering us your pro-mass-murderer nonsense. It's like the American system. The elections for Chancellor and for Parliament are separate. Hitler stood for Chancellor and lost. So, he didn't become Chancellor by winning the election but because he was appointed by Hindenberg without being voted in. Also, although the Nazis were the largest party, they had no overall majority of seats and could not have democratically ruled alone. Oh, Lily, let it be. The Democratic system in 1930's Germany was still "slightly" more democratic than the system that made Hamas take over Gaza. Still, what would Bertrus know about it? and if he did do you think he/she/it would admit that Hamas won through terror intimidation? |
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Jan 28, 2009 21:51:04 GMT
It's true he was appointed by Hndenberg but only after his Nazi party won the largest number of seats in the Reichstag. Why don't you actually look at the facts before offering us your pro-mass-murderer nonsense. It's like the American system. The elections for Chancellor and for Parliament are separate. Hitler stood for Chancellor and lost. So, he didn't become Chancellor by winning the election but because he was appointed by Hindenberg without being voted in. Also, although the Nazis were the largest party, they had no overall majority of seats and could not have democratically ruled alone. Which is precisely why I posted the link dopey and the explanation. Perhaps your antisemitism is clouding your judgement! Now read slowly ... Hitler didn't win the position of Chancellor. It was because the Nazis were the largest party after the election that Hitler was able to demand, and obtain for himself, the position of Chancellor from Hindenberg. Got it now? |
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Jan 28, 2009 23:23:42 GMT
It's true he was appointed by Hndenberg but only after his Nazi party won the largest number of seats in the Reichstag. Why don't you actually look at the facts before offering us your pro-mass-murderer nonsense. It's like the American system. The elections for Chancellor and for Parliament are separate. Hitler stood for Chancellor and lost. So, he didn't become Chancellor by winning the election but because he was appointed by Hindenberg without being voted in. Also, although the Nazis were the largest party, they had no overall majority of seats and could not have democratically ruled alone. The political reality was that Hindenberg had little choice. |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Jan 28, 2009 23:33:27 GMT
It was because the Nazis were the largest party after the election that Hitler was able to demand, and obtain for himself, the position of Chancellor from Hindenberg. There was an election for Chancellor and Hitler didn't win it. Therefore, he was not elected Chancellor. |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Jan 28, 2009 23:38:03 GMT
The political reality was that Hindenberg had little choice. Perhaps. But the argument that Hitler was 'democratically elected' fails. An even bigger failure is any argument that he became 'Fuhrer' by democratic means. So the attack on democracy by Israel apologists collapses. |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Jan 28, 2009 23:52:50 GMT
The democratic legitimacy of Hamas to form a government in the Palestinians Territories, (West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza) was established by an overwhelming electoral victory.In the 25 January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, Hamas won a decisive majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council or Parliament. Of the 132-seat Parliament, Hamas won 74 seats, thereby ending the Fatah party's control of the Palestinian Authority. Fatah managed to win only 45 seats with the remaining 13 seats divided among smaller parties. Voter turnout was high, at 77.7 percent. ...
This was Hamas's first participation in parliamentary election and analysts were surprised that they were able to gain a majority. Fatah's inability to provide basic services, numerous corruption scandals in the Palestinian Authority, high unemployment and Hamas's successes in providing services to the poor and other factors were all significant reasons for Hamas's election victory.
tinyurl.com/anbcqz
|
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Jan 28, 2009 23:56:21 GMT
Brown wasn't elected either, but he became leader through democratic means. When the policitcal reality and the political system is such that a person becomes leader by virtue of them, it is true to say they came to power through democratic means even if they weren't 'democratically elected'.
The point is Hitler had sufficient popular support to ensure he became chancellor. The rest is just pedantry.
|
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Jan 29, 2009 0:10:52 GMT
Brown wasn't elected either, but he became leader through democratic means. Brown didn't become Prime Minister throught the vote of the British electorate because there isn't a presidential system. In Germany, however, there was such a system and Hitler failed to be elected Chancellor. Therefore, he was not elected by the German electorate. He was appointed by Hindenberg. Therefore, the comparison with the Palestinian elections of 2006 which saw the Hamas political wing being given a mandate to rule Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, fails. |
|
avieder
New Member
never lie
Posts: 8,871
|
Post by avieder on Jan 29, 2009 4:28:34 GMT
Brown wasn't elected either, but he became leader through democratic means. Brown didn't become Prime Minister throught the vote of the British electorate because there isn't a presidential system. In Germany, however, there was such a system and Hitler failed to be elected Chancellor. Therefore, he was not elected by the German electorate. He was appointed by Hindenberg. Therefore, the comparison with the Palestinian elections of 2006 which saw the Hamas political wing being given a mandate to rule Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, fails. Therefore the comparison is not Hamas - Hitler but Hamas - Nazi Party. Have a good day everyone. |
|
