1  That Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

2  That the citizens of the State of Israel would be  risking mass suicide

    should they ever be foolish enough to even contemplate the 'solution'

    you previously suggested.

3  That your pacifist fantasies are precisely that - fantasies.

Excellent!

Then let's have no more of this one-sided pacifist drivel from you in the future.

Sorry, kappert, but my somewhat lengthy and detailed response to your incoherent ramblings failed to register on this site and to be perfectly honest with you I don't believe you are worth the second effort. However, it's good to see that you are now back "on board" with your own pacifist sentiments, it's just a pity that you don't appear to recognise the simple fact that terrorist organisations like Hamas and their ilk are not about to join you in your pacifist fantasies. Nor is the State of Israel and its citizenry about to embark upon a suicidal experiment, simply to enable people like myself to say to people like you, I TOLD YOU SO.

Still too difficult for you, is it? Let's try thinking ouside the billiard triangle shall we?

Statement: "To apply violence is a sad, sick thing".

Q: Who made that statement?

Q: Do you (still) agree with it?

Hint: YOU are the one who is supposed to be against ALL violence, from ALL quarters under ALL sets of circumstances and I am the one who is NOT.

Surely the question isn't that difficult, either a simply "Yes, I accept..." or "No, I do not accept the statement and observation that not all the people on that 'peace flotilla' were "peace activists" in any true sense of that term" will suffice.

Try again, you'll soon get the hang of it.

There you go again with the Double Dutch. Let's take this step by step so that even you can keep up. Do you or do you not accept the fact that not all the people on that 'peace flotilla' were "peace activists" in any true sense of that term?

Au contraire, it's the first part of that 'proposal' which is "highly hypothetical", as evidenced by the behaviour of some of your 'peace-activist' fellow travellers. See below:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/peace_activists/

But I'm sure you can explain this away too.

@ kappert

In an alternate reality Israel is no more, the lands and peoples of the 'Zionist Entity' having been successfully and peacefully incorporated into a modern Islamic State of Palestine.

In that same alternate reality the Jewish Palestinians begin to press their majority Arab/Muslim brothers and sisters to adopt a Western multicultural ethos demanding, among other things, a policy of unrestricted immigration for Jews from every corner of the globe, thereby threatening a medium term demographic shift away from the majority Islamic culture and leading, eventually, to a majority Jewish State of Palestine.

Question: Would you be an active and vociferous supporter of such a policy and if not, why not?

Thank you.

Capo: "The good ole Ottoman days".

You took the words right off the tips of my fingers. Which interestingly brings us back full circle to the possible reason for Turkey's current involvement in this whole affair.

"Anyway, aware of being called naïve, I like to recall that thousands of Jews lived for centuries in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan before the invention of Israel."

The good ole Ottoman Empire days.

Kappert: "If Israel would leave Lebanon in peace, it would be an example for the Middle East, Arabs and Jews could go back to their home-places in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan...".

Are you suggesting that a return to pre 1967 borders would be enough to appease Hamas and their pacifist supporters like yourself? If not, roughly how much land would the state of Israel have to hand over to its enemies before people like you are happy to support  Israel's efforts to live in peace with its Arab neighbours?

I freely acknowledge  deficiencies in at least one other area of learned and applied  competence, namely, the language of Double-Dutch. Now kindly address the issues before you in a rational and orderly manner.

Not understanding Dutch seems to be only one deficiency of yours. The Gaza flotilla assault is a disaster for Israel, proofing its outlaw position, and expelling Hamas officials only worsens the situation. Bibi and Barak are completely off line. As for pacifist intervention: since the days of Meir and Arafat pacifism has little chance, as we see, things are going worse, hate and violence increase. No ludicrous claims on that, but at least there is peace in Syria and Jordan, and if Israel would leave Lebanon in peace, it could be an example for the Middle East. Arabs and Jews could go back to their home-places in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan.

Even this self-proclaimed Lachrymose Intolerant had to shed the odd tear of mirth at some of Capo's recent postings.

Bazinga!

Before analysing and discussing further your ludicrous claims that an Islamic one state solution to the 'Palestinian' problem is either desirable or tenable, perhaps you could clarify something for me.

Kappert: " To apply violence is a sad, sick thing".

Does this statement absolute only apply to the Israelis? If not, do you believe Hamas might have a better chance of realizing its key objectives if it eschewed violence completely, even if this policy resulted, temporarily at least, in yet further annexations of 'Palestinian' territory by the Israelis, should the Israelis choose so to do?

Whether you believe it would or it wouldn't, please explain the reasoning to support your chosen hypothesis.

Thank you.

Kappert: Perhaps but your ability to comprehend and carry out simple instructions clearly doesn't.

(www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4448#comment-34554)

Over here please.

In response to a private e-mail:

I catagorically deny any intent on my part to raise the issue of Kappert's Homosexuality by engaging in ad homonym attacks on Kappert.

I would not even venture to guess whether Kappert is Homo Erectus let alone Homosexual.

Kappert's concern for Turkish seamen and activists I take at face value.

Please address concerns of US citizens engaging in homophobic attacks to the US Solicitor General.

You see Sun and Son are homonyms that's why Kappert's Heliocentric explanation all ties together so beautifully.

And of course, that leaves me with no alternative but to sink to ad homonym attacks.

"

Christianity is the continuity of heliocentric beliefs, going back the line of Sun Gods to the Egyptian Horus (3000BC), born Dec. 25th by the virgin Isis, accompanied by a star in the East, adorned by three kings, becoming a teacher at 12, baptised by Anubis at 30, gaining 12 disciples and performed miracles. Then crucified, dead for three days and resurrected. The story is copied by other Sun Gods throughout the millenniums: Attis in Greece (1200BC), Mithra in Persia (1200BC), Krishna in India (900BC), Dionysus in Greece (500BC), … there are more personalities with an identical story, the most famous Messiah-Sun-God of present times is Jesus of Nazareth (0).The storyboard is nothing else than a astrological allegory leading to an astrotheological hybrid. On Dec. 25Th, the Sirius star lines up with the three Orion stars (3 Kings) pointing to winter solstice. Virgo, another star representing (Virgin) Maria, the house of bread, that's Bethlehem, a place in the stars and not on Earth. Three days on the cross derivates also from the Sun (Dec. 22.-24.). The precession of equinoxes, the Age (Aeon) of 2150 years, changed over the times from Taurus (destroyed by Moses 'slay every man') and Aries (the Jews still blow the shofar) to present Picsis. In the 22nd century we'll enter Aquarius. As to say with Thomas Paine: „The Christian Religion is a parody of solar worship, placing the figure of Christ instead of the Sun.“ The narratives of Jesus base on these astrological components, embedded in a fairytale of omnipotent God, always watching and loving you, condemning you eternally to hell if you trespass his laws. Christianity is nothing more than a Roman fairytale, fixed in 325 at Nicaea, providing power to religious myths – and the people believe it!

"

Is that coherent enough for you?

Well, now is your opportunity to show Capo up for the incoherent responder  that you claim he is. How? Try answering my original question in a coherent fashion. In other words, lead by example and not with your chin.

Your call what you do and how you handle the situation...Just be there for me, kappert, just be there, and I for one am prepared to let kismet take care of the rest.

Oops! Too late. A little birdie tells me pacifism has won the day and the emergency is over.

Kappert is doing serious scholarly research into whether ancient Egyptian chariots were in fact pulled by teams of 12 reindeer with painted red-noses.

Meanwhile, reports of a deranged individual breaking into King Tut's tomb and attempting to set up a creche has set off rioting and retaliation against local Copts. The deranged individual claims to be a victim of a zionist plot.

@Atlanticist

I think one would be more likely to get coherent responses from the bots that post on TBJ than kappert.

There is currently a gunman terrorising the Whitehaven area of Cumbria. The general populace of Cumbria are unarmed and so are the police. Where is kappert when and where we need her services the most?

Don't flatter yourself, I'm not in the slightest bit interested in you as a specimen life-form, only in the irreparable damage creatures like you have done -and continue to do- to my 'environment' and traditional way of life.

So keep wriggling, kappert, 'cause I for one don't intend letting you off this particular hook anytime soon. 

Sorry, it seems you are much more interested in me than in the occurence in the Eastern Mediterranean.

NATO is not a pacifist organisation. NATO reserves the right to take up force of arms in pursuit of its key objectives. Do you support NATO's right so to do? No, of course not, hypocrite, so what the hell are you waffling on about here? And again, I'm still waiting for you to answer my original question.

Dear friends, I was just wondering: a non-NATO country (Israel) attacked ships of NATO countries (Turkey/Ireland) in international waters (piracy). Now, shouldn't article 5 evoked by that despicable challenge? After-all, “any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security”. Article 6 (1) describes what constitutes an “armed attack”, namely, among other actions, “an attack on the forces, vessels or aircraft of any of the Parties” in a theatre which includes the Mediterranean Sea. Let's wait if Mr Rasmussen has to say anything!

You are a coward and a hypocrite. A coward not beccause you won't fight, but because you allow others to do your fighting for you, both physically and metaphorically. Your hypocrisy is a function of your cowardice. Now answer my question, or withdraw, not for the first time, in total humiliation and defeat.

There is something seriously wrong with you.

Yes, you are correct , I do have MY OWN theory on this issue. What I didn't know and still remain in the dark about is how YOU believe the 'Peace activists' should have reacted to the violent  assault on their ship(s).You appear to have an opinion on everything else so what's you're opinion on this? Please, enlighten me. Again, I'm listening.  

Well, what's your response? I'm listening.

From Der Spiegel, the most balanced view I've yet read:

"The pro-Palestinian organizers had described the fleet with which they had hoped to break through the Israeli sea blockade of the Gaza Strip on Monday morning as a "humanitarian aid convoy." But as the Israeli army stormed the largest ship, the Mavi Marmara, the activists they encountered were in no way exclusively docile peaceniks. Some of the "peace activists" received the Israelis with crow bars and sling shots. Some of the self-professed "human rights activists" reportedly even tore the weapons from soldiers and began to shoot. That's not what a peaceful protest looks like.

"...But the reaction from Israel, a state which proclaims to adhere to the rule of law, was far from appropriate. Regardless how prepared to engage in violence the organizers of the ship convoy might have been: With at least 15 dead, all on the side of the activists, and more than 30 injured, some seriously, one thing is certain: Israel carelessly threw one of the most important principles of the application of military violence overboard: the proportionality of military force. Israel was fair in arguing that there is no humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. For most of the Palestinians living along the coastal strip, life is anything but comfortable because Israel refuses to allow many goods to enter into the country. But nobody is starving. Nevertheless, with its heavy-handed military action, Israel has created the impression that it has something to hide in Gaza."

Traveller raises an interesting point which I have seen voiced elsewhere. The theory being that an increasingly Islamist leaning Turkish administration now wishes to ingratiate itself with fellow Islamists and become the  new vanguard for that movement.

Ok, so 'The Zionist Entity' does what 'The Zionist Entity' does best, and we can differ in our respective definitions of what that is, but perhaps YOU could explain to me why self-proclaimed "Peace activists" would choose to resort to violence of ANY kind, be it with guns, fists or iron bars. Do you condone this behaviour and if not please proffer a suggestion as to what those 'Peace activists' should have done  in the given set of circumstances.

Thank you.

RE:

1.  Lee has faced criticism for abandoning the “Sunshine Policy” of his predecessors, and his critics wrongly blame deteriorating inter-Korean relations and the sinking of the Cheonan to Lee, rather than Kim.  These critics, including those in the West, cannot accept the fact that North Korea is wholly under the control of irrational absolute ruler, who possesses the bomb and can level Seoul. They try to make North Korea make sense, even though it does not, and this invariably means rational heads of state such as Lee or Bush are turned upon.  In fact they are turned to, to make it stop.  Lee should be hailed for demanding nuclear disarmament in exchange for economic assistance.  Instead, critics basically argue that South Korea and the rest of the world (incl. the US and China) should prop up one of the worst absolute monarchies in human history.  Kim is not going to go away or be contained because we wish it.  He is prepared to destroy all of Korea to make a point.  If ever a war was necessary, this one is…

2.  The DPRK’s usefulness quickly began to end after the split with Moscow and the American withdrawal from South Vietnam.  Beijing’s problem was who to fill the vacuum with?  Moreover, many hardliners in the CCP and in the PLA believe that war with the United States and its allies is imminent, so why give up Kim’s million-strong army?

3.  South Korea is faced with a very difficult decision.  Even without the bomb, Kim can destroy Seoul with an artillery barrage.  Those 46 sailors didn’t die in vain, but they won’t be avenged.

4.  Indeed.  Calderon is also pressuring Canada to become an auxilliary overpopulation valve.

5.  On the contrary, these countries’ possession of nuclear weapons are not comforting.  Firstly, the Russian is unreliable due to crumbling infrastructure and poor maintenance.  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian missiles were almost launched twice in error.  Secondly, Indo-Pakistani tensions could spark a nuclear exchange in South Asia.  Thirdly, I worry about Muslim supremacists (“homegrown terrorists”) in the UK, France, Russia, India and Pakistan infiltrating the their militaries and launching a rogue attack.  Fourth, fanatical elements in the IDF may attempt a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran, although this scenario is unlikely unless Israel suffers a full-blown invasion or WMD attack.  Lastly, the Chinese and American arsenals are probably the most “reliable” or “reassuring”, if these descriptions can even be applied.

6.  I agree.  Given the IRGC’s nuclear weapons program operating in parallel to the “civilian” one, it is essential that Iran’s entire stocks of HEU and capacity to produce HEU be kept under close IAEA scrutiny and supervision.  These must be disposed of and dismantled as the Brazilian-Turkish agreement is providing for Iran’s “needs” (tongue-in-cheek)…

A recent editorial in the People's Daily came down very hard (at least in Chinese terms) against the DPRK. It stated that South Korea's reaction is "understandable." It essentially called the North Koreans liars. This coming upon the 60th anniversary of the Korean War, where Chinese and US soldiers fought. One would think that the PRC has much influence over the North Koreans, but when dealing with Communists, who can really say the motives?

Kappert, the standard scholarly practice outside of the Kappert Isle is to put quotation marks around direct quotes and to cite your source. So, when you wish to communicate with the real world...

"The Zionist Entity has carried out a terrorist attack in international waters."

- The Hezbollah Broadcasting Network

sponsored by The Send Your Kid to 'Blow Yourself-Up Summer Camp!'

@ kappert

You sound angry and upset. Perhaps you should consider organising a Pacifist Militia and volunteering  your collective services on a second voyage of liberation and salvation. It could work. You think?

The Zionist Entity has carried out a terrorist attack in international waters.

The author wrote:  "It is unpleasant to admit, but the South is partly to blame for being stewed in the cauldron in which it finds itself."  The truth itself may be unpleasant, but there's nothing at all unpleasant about admitting the truth. Pretending the South Korean government and electorate are intelligent and rational--that would be unpleasant.