7 arrested in Waterford in "alleged" Al-Qaeda murder plot

[Clanrickard]

I understand where you're coming from, I too once used to quote UN resolution to beat the band too. Then I had my eyes opened about the UN, but that's another story.

There's a few other resolutions the UN were supposed to enforce too and haven't. For example the PA authority were supposed to halt broadcasts aimed at children which demonise Jews, hasn't happened. The UN were also supposed to oversee the disarmament of Hezbolah, hasn't happened.

It's also useful to remind ourselves how that land became occupied in the first place. You seem reasonably well versed so I'll dispense with the history lesson on that, suffice to say under similar circumstances most nations wouldn't have occupied it, they'd have simply annexed it.

Aggressors in war can expect, or at least they should, to pay a penalty in terms of territory, that's been the way of the world since records began. It's a form of moral hazard which discourages further agression. But the Arabs seem to feel, and why wouldn't they with the UN to encourage them, that every decade or two they can have a go at wiping Israel from the pages of history. Then when, against all the odds, they get their asses handed to them in a sling, they go crying to the UN over the territory they lost. It should be a case of telling them BooHoo that'll learn you, but no, the UN, gamed as it is by the OIC (and their useful idiots in the west) indulges them.

How many people here who routinely refer to the "Occupied Territories" used similar terminology about say East Germany? I'd wager not too many. While many were, I'm sure, happy to witness reunification almost no one in polite society would have argued that Germany didn't richly deserve to lose half of its formerly sovereign territory in consequence for it's agression in WW2. Why should the Middle East be any different? Don't you accept the argument that the Arabs need a serious disincentive against having another go at wiping Israel out for good?

For some reason Europeans seem to believe that Israel should be made play by a different rule book than the one everyone else gets to play by.

Good post.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Aggressors in war can expect, or at least they should, to pay a penalty in terms of territory, that's been the way of the world since records began.

It was Israel that started the Six Day War. Egypt was entirely within its rights to mass 100,000 troops in the Sinai Peninsula because it was Egyptian sovereign-territory. "Since world records began"? I don't recall parts of Iraq being incorporated into the US or any other party to the 1991 or 2003 Gulf/Iraq wars. That is simply false.

It's a form of moral hazard which discourages further agression.

Like France losing Alsace-Lorraine in 1871?

[imokyrok]

I understand where you're coming from, I too once used to quote UN resolution to beat the band too. Then I had my eyes opened about the UN, but that's another story.

There's a few other resolutions the UN were supposed to enforce too and haven't. For example the PA authority were supposed to halt broadcasts aimed at children which demonise Jews, hasn't happened. The UN were also supposed to oversee the disarmament of Hezbolah, hasn't happened.

It's also useful to remind ourselves how that land became occupied in the first place. You seem reasonably well versed so I'll dispense with the history lesson on that, suffice to say under similar circumstances most nations wouldn't have occupied it, they'd have simply annexed it.

Aggressors in war can expect, or at least they should, to pay a penalty in terms of territory, that's been the way of the world since records began. It's a form of moral hazard which discourages further agression. But the Arabs seem to feel, and why wouldn't they with the UN to encourage them, that every decade or two they can have a go at wiping Israel from the pages of history. Then when, against all the odds, they get their asses handed to them in a sling, they go crying to the UN over the territory they lost. It should be a case of telling them BooHoo that'll learn you, but no, the UN, gamed as it is by the OIC (and their useful idiots in the west) indulges them.

How many people here who routinely refer to the "Occupied Territories" used similar terminology about say East Germany? I'd wager not too many. While many were, I'm sure, happy to witness reunification almost no one in polite society would have argued that Germany didn't richly deserve to lose half of its formerly sovereign territory in consequence for it's agression in WW2. Why should the Middle East be any different? Don't you accept the argument that the Arabs need a serious disincentive against having another go at wiping Israel out for good?

For some reason Europeans seem to believe that Israel should be made play by a different rule book than the one everyone else gets to play by.

Well maybe if you'd argued that East Germany should have been handed over to the European Jews after WW2 someone might agree with you. But creating two wrongs by taking rights from one innocent community to ease the plight of another was one of the biggest mistakes in human history. The only ones do any serious "wiping" out have been Israelis. If 400 Israeli children had been murdered in a matter of a few weeks whole Arab nations would have been flattened by now.

[L'Chaim]

It's also useful to remind ourselves how that land became occupied in the first place. You seem reasonably well versed so I'll dispense with the history lesson on that, suffice to say under similar circumstances most nations wouldn't have occupied it, they'd have simply annexed it.

Aggressors in war can expect, or at least they should, to pay a penalty in terms of territory, that's been the way of the world since records began. It's a form of moral hazard which discourages further aggression. But the Arabs seem to feel, and why wouldn't they with the UN to encourage them, that every decade or two they can have a go at wiping Israel from the pages of history. Then when, against all the odds, they get their asses handed to them in a sling, they go crying to the UN over the territory they lost. It should be a case of telling them BooHoo that'll learn you, but no, the UN, gamed as it is by the OIC (and their useful idiots in the west) indulges them.


For some reason Europeans seem to believe that Israel should be made play by a different rule book than the one everyone else gets to play by.

Quite right! Some people just don't seem to realise that Palestinian and Arab leaders have to take the blame for repeated rejection of a two state solution and the resulting escalation of violence. To reward rejection and violence, as the UN does, is to encourage such conduct. There should be a high price paid by those who reject peace in favour of violence, as the Palestinians have since the 1930s (and earlier). And there should be a price paid by those who start aggressive wars, as the palestinians and arabs did repeatedly. And there should be a benefit for those who were willing to accept a two state solution in 1937, 48 and 2000/2001, as Israel was.

[JSLeFanu]

It was Israel that started the Six Day War. Egypt was entirely within its rights to mass 100,000 troops in the Sinai Peninsula because it was Egyptian sovereign-territory. "Since world records began"? I don't recall parts of Iraq being incorporated into the US or any other party to the 1991 or 2003 Gulf/Iraq wars. That is simply false.

It's a form of moral hazard which discourages further agression.

Like France losing Alsace-Lorraine in 1871?

Ok, now you're moving to different territory entirely FT. Tell me was Egypt also within it's rights, at this time, to broadcast in Hebrew to the Jews telling them that they were going to be destroyed? What why would you expect any government to react to that? At the same time the BBC interviewed Faisal of KSA and he said, and I quote: "the aim of the operation was to EXTERMINATE the Jews" end of quote.

Leaving all that aside Egypt had expelled the UN presence in Straights, who were there to protect Israels access to the waterways and then blockaded shipping, that's an act of war in itself. But even if that wasn't the case when a alliance of your enemies broadcasts their intent, day after day, to destroy you while mobilising their forces on your border, when one of those allies goes and announces to a foreign TV station that they're going to exterminate you what would you have your government do? Seriously now, be honest, what do you think would have been the outcome there?

[L'Chaim]

It was Israel that started the Six Day War. Egypt was entirely within its rights to mass 100,000 troops in the Sinai Peninsula because it was Egyptian sovereign-territory. "Since world records began"? I don't recall parts of Iraq being incorporated into the US or any other party to the 1991 or 2003 Gulf/Iraq wars. That is simply false.Like France losing Alsace-Lorraine in 1871?

Israel fired the first shots, but Egypt, Jordan and Syria started the war. The war was begun by Egypt when it closed the Gulf of Aqaba to israeli shipping and by ordering the removal of UN troops from the Sinai. The closing of the Straits of Tiran was recognised by the international community as an act of war by Egypt. And Egypt were not within its rights to mass 100,000 troops on their side of the border with Israel, if they are massing there poised to strike Israel. That in itself is an act of aggression. Israel exhausted all diplomatic options, including going to the UN and the UN, who in turn, asked Egypt to declare they were not going to attack Israel. Egypt refused to give that guarantee.

[JSLeFanu]

Well maybe if you'd argued that East Germany should have been handed over to the European Jews after WW2 someone might agree with you. But creating two wrongs by taking rights from one innocent community to ease the plight of another was one of the biggest mistakes in human history. The only ones do any serious "wiping" out have been Israelis. If 400 Israeli children had been murdered in a matter of a few weeks whole Arab nations would have been flattened by now.

It would be a fine thing if HAMAS treated children as children and took reasonable measures to protect them. We both know they don't. As a matter of fact they scarsely even recognaise childhood as something precious to begin with and when it comes to fighting they make no distinction whatsoever. They target Israeli kids and they strap suicide belts onto their own kids.

The only time they make a pretense of treating childhood as something special is for the benefit of western journos and camera crews. Then they serve up an eyewatering ham display of caring about the little children and like pavlovs dogs westerners like yourself respond by frothing at the mouth about Israel.

[imokyrok]

Swedish newspapers reprint the cartoon today.

FT.com / UK - Swedish papers reprint Mohammed cartoon

[Trampas]

Swedish newspapers reprint the cartoon today.

FT.com / UK - Swedish papers reprint Mohammed cartoon

It would appear that at long last Sweden is awakening to the nature and extent of that mortal threat to their culture and way of life, and also that of their descendants.

[Nodin]

Quite right! Some people just don't seem to realise that Palestinian and Arab leaders have to take the blame for repeated rejection of a two state solution and the resulting escalation of violence.

But should they take the blame for the continued expansion into the OT by Israel? I think not.