The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Apologies if someone here has already covered this but anyway...
With the Queen Mother passing away on Saturday the news has, rightfully, been dominated by that and stories around it. Obviously this is quite right and to be expected BUT...and there's always a but isn't there ?
The situation between Israel and Palestine, and the whole Middle East in general is a stroy that many networks, apart from CNN and Fox, and maybe SKY, seem to be generally giving little air time to. This is wrong because the situation there is rapidly detieriorating by the minute and many aren't even aware how serious it has become.
Over the weekend nearly Iran and Iraq were welcomed back into the Middle eastern equivalent of the EU by nearly all the countries apart from Saudi Arabia and two others. In addtion OPEC is beginning to cause rising oil, and consequently petrol, prices. This alone will be bad for the world economy, at least in the West. Egypt has today broken diplomatic ties with Israel - another bad event because lack of communication between governments often leads to fatal misunderstanding. Israel continues its incursions whilst its own citizens are dying still from the aftermath of the Palestinian suicide bombers responsible for this new wave of violence. You've also got Arafat refusing to leave Ramallah, Palestinians holed up in the centre of Bethlehem, Hamas vowing to continue suicdie bombings and rocet attacks against Israel, Ariel Sharon unable to back down because of his own people, America stuck in the middle and facing criticism whatever it decides to do, Bush himself is trapped by his own public opinion, the UN messing around as usual on the sidelines and peace protestors seemingly trying to see how far they can push Israeli troops before they will open fire...not to mention civilians on both sides of this conflict.
In short, we could be looking at a new Middle Eastern war, and most people don't care or are too concerned with politically correct squabbling.
So thats my rant over :) Go back to watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire or something.....
With the Queen Mother passing away on Saturday the news has, rightfully, been dominated by that and stories around it. Obviously this is quite right and to be expected BUT...and there's always a but isn't there ?
The situation between Israel and Palestine, and the whole Middle East in general is a stroy that many networks, apart from CNN and Fox, and maybe SKY, seem to be generally giving little air time to. This is wrong because the situation there is rapidly detieriorating by the minute and many aren't even aware how serious it has become.
Over the weekend nearly Iran and Iraq were welcomed back into the Middle eastern equivalent of the EU by nearly all the countries apart from Saudi Arabia and two others. In addtion OPEC is beginning to cause rising oil, and consequently petrol, prices. This alone will be bad for the world economy, at least in the West. Egypt has today broken diplomatic ties with Israel - another bad event because lack of communication between governments often leads to fatal misunderstanding. Israel continues its incursions whilst its own citizens are dying still from the aftermath of the Palestinian suicide bombers responsible for this new wave of violence. You've also got Arafat refusing to leave Ramallah, Palestinians holed up in the centre of Bethlehem, Hamas vowing to continue suicdie bombings and rocet attacks against Israel, Ariel Sharon unable to back down because of his own people, America stuck in the middle and facing criticism whatever it decides to do, Bush himself is trapped by his own public opinion, the UN messing around as usual on the sidelines and peace protestors seemingly trying to see how far they can push Israeli troops before they will open fire...not to mention civilians on both sides of this conflict.
In short, we could be looking at a new Middle Eastern war, and most people don't care or are too concerned with politically correct squabbling.
So thats my rant over :) Go back to watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire or something.....
Page:
Seinfeld_Enthusiast wrote:
There is no such nation,
> state or country as 'Palestine', Goatboy, before the declaration of the state of
> Israel in 1948 it was known as the British Mandate of Palestine, but the term
> 'Palestine' hasn't been referred to in the media or by politicians in over 50
> years.
I'm aware of that, but the time of night it was written and the fact that, ultimately, it's the same ground with different names, I wrote the quickest and easiest thing that sprang to mind.
If it was a piece for a news site then I'd be concerned about it.
It is good though that people are starting to take
> an interest in what I consider to be the #1 issue right now, even though I get
> the feeling that it might have something to do with possible increases in petrol
> prices.
A wee bit patronising don't you think?
There is no such nation,
> state or country as 'Palestine', Goatboy, before the declaration of the state of
> Israel in 1948 it was known as the British Mandate of Palestine, but the term
> 'Palestine' hasn't been referred to in the media or by politicians in over 50
> years.
I'm aware of that, but the time of night it was written and the fact that, ultimately, it's the same ground with different names, I wrote the quickest and easiest thing that sprang to mind.
If it was a piece for a news site then I'd be concerned about it.
It is good though that people are starting to take
> an interest in what I consider to be the #1 issue right now, even though I get
> the feeling that it might have something to do with possible increases in petrol
> prices.
A wee bit patronising don't you think?
Thanks for your thoughts but I cannot help but feel that I've been misinterpreted. My point was not a political one, I was just pointing out that the term 'Palestine' is not officially recognized since the inauguration of the state of Israel in 1948. I would be delighted if this time next year we could be referring to 'Palestine', and though I'm sure it's obvious what part of the world you are talking about, it has yet to happen. That's what amazes me about people that refer to 'Palestine' incorrectly: the dream has yet to be fulfilled, but a reference to it only assumes the work has been completed, when unfortunately it has not. Your other point about new countries since 1948, confuses me. I was only making the point that countries and places change names sometimes in their history for a variety of reasons. That's why we do not refer to Stalingrad, Siam, or Saigon either. (I hope those are right.) That's all.
So yes you're right about the occupied territories, I was wrong to overstep my classification argument into politics, and they are not, nor should be, parts of Israel. Unfortunately, they are still not regarded as their own state, and that is why we cannot yet make reference to 'Palestine' in its own right.
I could argue with you longer but I feel I've made my point and since I agree with your political thoughts by and large, it would be needless.
So yes you're right about the occupied territories, I was wrong to overstep my classification argument into politics, and they are not, nor should be, parts of Israel. Unfortunately, they are still not regarded as their own state, and that is why we cannot yet make reference to 'Palestine' in its own right.
I could argue with you longer but I feel I've made my point and since I agree with your political thoughts by and large, it would be needless.
Seinfeld_Enthusiast wrote:
By the way, I corrected someone else in another post about
> the Middle East, so I should do the same thing here. There is no such nation,
> state or country as 'Palestine', Goatboy, before the declaration of the state of
> Israel in 1948 it was known as the British Mandate of Palestine, but the term
> 'Palestine' hasn't been referred to in the media or by politicians in over 50
> years. Except for when Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, made a reference to
> Palestine abroad, and was forced to make an apology. Gaza and the West Bank are
> referred to as the occupied territories, but are still officially part of
> Israel, for the time being.
Well this is a load of pish.
Let's consider which countries were considered legitimate states before 1948: every 'western' country, except those under the 'Communist' yoke; India (by a year); nowhere in sub-Saharan Africa; blah blah blah. Israel was given away without the consultation of the Palestinians - those that actually lived there - and with little consultation of the wishes of Jews outside the pre-existing Zionist movement. The options of displaced persons (as they were called) were extremely limited: either mistreatment in European refugee camps or the promises of the Zionist movement. The willingness to give away the land of another people was the most disgraceful outcome of WWII.
If 1948 was somehow the cut-off point for legitimate states then we could not refer to Ghana, Nigeria, Vietnam, Angola etc (or for that matter, Scotland) as 'real' countries. I am not sure what differentiated a Jewish state from a Palestinian one: nor who decided that the aspirations of one were to be lauded, while the wishes of the other were to be described as unrealistic dreaming.
The occupied territories are not, as you call them, officially part of Israel: unless the rights and wrongs of occupation are only to be decided by Israel and the US. The United Nations have consistently called on Israel to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank: to concern themselves with the (not ungenerous) limits imposed on Israeli sovereignty in, yes, 1948.
It seems like every time I have posted on the forums in the last week I have been more or less intoxicated. And I'm sorry if this is not as eloquent as it could be. But comments that no such thing as Palestine existed are moronic in the extreme. The sight of Israeli soldiers kicking in door after door; denying access in or out of Palestinian hospitals (and fatally sniping at those who disobey); shooting live bullets at peace protestors - Israelis among them; capturing and burning media buildings. These should not get pedantic responses (Palestine has never existed) but should illicit condemnation. This is not, as is claimed, an attack on a terrorist infrastructure: such a thing does not exist. Suicide bombers are not allowed to exist throught water, gas or electricity supplies; nor through schools or hosptals; nor even through the infrastructure that connects many Palestinians to their jobs in Israel or the settlements. The infrasrtucture that allows Palestinian terrorism to flourish is one of despair: the beating of children; the humiliation of Arabs at Israeli checkpoints; the carte blanche given to Israeli settlers in meteing out 'justice' as they see fit.
This has been one of the most dispiriting weeks in world politics that I can remember. I hope against hope that it ends soon.
By the way, I corrected someone else in another post about
> the Middle East, so I should do the same thing here. There is no such nation,
> state or country as 'Palestine', Goatboy, before the declaration of the state of
> Israel in 1948 it was known as the British Mandate of Palestine, but the term
> 'Palestine' hasn't been referred to in the media or by politicians in over 50
> years. Except for when Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, made a reference to
> Palestine abroad, and was forced to make an apology. Gaza and the West Bank are
> referred to as the occupied territories, but are still officially part of
> Israel, for the time being.
Well this is a load of pish.
Let's consider which countries were considered legitimate states before 1948: every 'western' country, except those under the 'Communist' yoke; India (by a year); nowhere in sub-Saharan Africa; blah blah blah. Israel was given away without the consultation of the Palestinians - those that actually lived there - and with little consultation of the wishes of Jews outside the pre-existing Zionist movement. The options of displaced persons (as they were called) were extremely limited: either mistreatment in European refugee camps or the promises of the Zionist movement. The willingness to give away the land of another people was the most disgraceful outcome of WWII.
If 1948 was somehow the cut-off point for legitimate states then we could not refer to Ghana, Nigeria, Vietnam, Angola etc (or for that matter, Scotland) as 'real' countries. I am not sure what differentiated a Jewish state from a Palestinian one: nor who decided that the aspirations of one were to be lauded, while the wishes of the other were to be described as unrealistic dreaming.
The occupied territories are not, as you call them, officially part of Israel: unless the rights and wrongs of occupation are only to be decided by Israel and the US. The United Nations have consistently called on Israel to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank: to concern themselves with the (not ungenerous) limits imposed on Israeli sovereignty in, yes, 1948.
It seems like every time I have posted on the forums in the last week I have been more or less intoxicated. And I'm sorry if this is not as eloquent as it could be. But comments that no such thing as Palestine existed are moronic in the extreme. The sight of Israeli soldiers kicking in door after door; denying access in or out of Palestinian hospitals (and fatally sniping at those who disobey); shooting live bullets at peace protestors - Israelis among them; capturing and burning media buildings. These should not get pedantic responses (Palestine has never existed) but should illicit condemnation. This is not, as is claimed, an attack on a terrorist infrastructure: such a thing does not exist. Suicide bombers are not allowed to exist throught water, gas or electricity supplies; nor through schools or hosptals; nor even through the infrastructure that connects many Palestinians to their jobs in Israel or the settlements. The infrasrtucture that allows Palestinian terrorism to flourish is one of despair: the beating of children; the humiliation of Arabs at Israeli checkpoints; the carte blanche given to Israeli settlers in meteing out 'justice' as they see fit.
This has been one of the most dispiriting weeks in world politics that I can remember. I hope against hope that it ends soon.
Seinfeld_Enthusiast wrote:
> Do not get me started on the Daily Mail...I deplore this publication like you
> cannot imagine.
I would say it is the best of all the tabloid publications, by a good bit. Only the broadsheets can beat it on quality, but you have to fold them round your face 100 times to read the bloody things.
> Do not get me started on the Daily Mail...I deplore this publication like you
> cannot imagine.
I would say it is the best of all the tabloid publications, by a good bit. Only the broadsheets can beat it on quality, but you have to fold them round your face 100 times to read the bloody things.
Do not get me started on the Daily Mail...I deplore this publication like you cannot imagine.
By the way, I corrected someone else in another post about the Middle East, so I should do the same thing here. There is no such nation, state or country as 'Palestine', Goatboy, before the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948 it was known as the British Mandate of Palestine, but the term 'Palestine' hasn't been referred to in the media or by politicians in over 50 years. Except for when Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, made a reference to Palestine abroad, and was forced to make an apology. Gaza and the West Bank are referred to as the occupied territories, but are still officially part of Israel, for the time being. It is good though that people are starting to take an interest in what I consider to be the #1 issue right now, even though I get the feeling that it might have something to do with possible increases in petrol prices.
By the way, I corrected someone else in another post about the Middle East, so I should do the same thing here. There is no such nation, state or country as 'Palestine', Goatboy, before the declaration of the state of Israel in 1948 it was known as the British Mandate of Palestine, but the term 'Palestine' hasn't been referred to in the media or by politicians in over 50 years. Except for when Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, made a reference to Palestine abroad, and was forced to make an apology. Gaza and the West Bank are referred to as the occupied territories, but are still officially part of Israel, for the time being. It is good though that people are starting to take an interest in what I consider to be the #1 issue right now, even though I get the feeling that it might have something to do with possible increases in petrol prices.
Seinfeld_Enthusiast wrote:
> Really two posts in one, both of which I broadly agree with.
The way I see
> it, she is just one person who has passed away peacefully, and while it's
> newsworthy for a bit, it soons dies away. My parents get the Daily Mail
> (shamefully)
Really there is nothing wrong with the daily mail, apart from the queen mother suppliment which was about 6 pages big, yeah she was the queens mum, question: who cares?
> Really two posts in one, both of which I broadly agree with.
The way I see
> it, she is just one person who has passed away peacefully, and while it's
> newsworthy for a bit, it soons dies away. My parents get the Daily Mail
> (shamefully)
Really there is nothing wrong with the daily mail, apart from the queen mother suppliment which was about 6 pages big, yeah she was the queens mum, question: who cares?
Sharon doesn't have the cuddly appeal of Queen Mum, I think that's the problem.
The thing that gets me, the papers are being all "YOU ARE NOT GRIEVING ENOUGH YOU HEARTLESS BA###RDS".
Why should we?
I'm not glad she died, but I didnt know her at all so it's unfortunate for her family and that's it.
Whereas the Palestine situation could very well end up spilling over into my world.
The thing that gets me, the papers are being all "YOU ARE NOT GRIEVING ENOUGH YOU HEARTLESS BA###RDS".
Why should we?
I'm not glad she died, but I didnt know her at all so it's unfortunate for her family and that's it.
Whereas the Palestine situation could very well end up spilling over into my world.
Really two posts in one, both of which I broadly agree with.
The way I see it, she is just one person who has passed away peacefully, and while it's newsworthy for a bit, it soons dies away. My parents get the Daily Mail (shamefully) and for the past two days it has had nearly twenty pages given to her death, in addition to a colour supplement too. Meanwhile, the situation in the Middle East was relegated to page 17, with far more lives involved. It seems that this newspaper is overcompensating to the slightly muted public reaction by ramming it down our throats. It's the way they have a two-page special illustrating the route of the funeral carriage, with just too much newsprint given to this occasion. You can see by how few people have given flowers that not that many people care.
About the Middle East situation, yes it is grim, but I think some people are educated about it but not the general population and obviously not George Bush too much. I find it shameful that it only makes front page news when related to the possible increase in the price of petrol by ~2p/litre, which I think is rather less important than the the chance of war and who knows what else.
One correction though: there's no such country as Palestine, before the state of Israel was declared in 1948, it was known as the British Mandate of Palestine, but not as Palestine. The areas of Gaza and the West Bank are referred to as the occupied territories, but are still technically Israel. Jack Straw referred to 'Palestine' on a recent trip abroad and was forced to make an embarassing climbdown very shortly after.
The way I see it, she is just one person who has passed away peacefully, and while it's newsworthy for a bit, it soons dies away. My parents get the Daily Mail (shamefully) and for the past two days it has had nearly twenty pages given to her death, in addition to a colour supplement too. Meanwhile, the situation in the Middle East was relegated to page 17, with far more lives involved. It seems that this newspaper is overcompensating to the slightly muted public reaction by ramming it down our throats. It's the way they have a two-page special illustrating the route of the funeral carriage, with just too much newsprint given to this occasion. You can see by how few people have given flowers that not that many people care.
About the Middle East situation, yes it is grim, but I think some people are educated about it but not the general population and obviously not George Bush too much. I find it shameful that it only makes front page news when related to the possible increase in the price of petrol by ~2p/litre, which I think is rather less important than the the chance of war and who knows what else.
One correction though: there's no such country as Palestine, before the state of Israel was declared in 1948, it was known as the British Mandate of Palestine, but not as Palestine. The areas of Gaza and the West Bank are referred to as the occupied territories, but are still technically Israel. Jack Straw referred to 'Palestine' on a recent trip abroad and was forced to make an embarassing climbdown very shortly after.
yeah, maybe a bit off the point, and I have said this before, but I don't think it is right that so much media coverage is dedicated to famous people... even the Queen mother...
Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't be having any of these dedications to her on TV or whatever, but before she dies, it got a bit stupid, where every time she got a sniffle it was deemed front page news... surely there's better things to cover?!?
Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't be having any of these dedications to her on TV or whatever, but before she dies, it got a bit stupid, where every time she got a sniffle it was deemed front page news... surely there's better things to cover?!?
Apologies if someone here has already covered this but anyway...
With the Queen Mother passing away on Saturday the news has, rightfully, been dominated by that and stories around it. Obviously this is quite right and to be expected BUT...and there's always a but isn't there ?
The situation between Israel and Palestine, and the whole Middle East in general is a stroy that many networks, apart from CNN and Fox, and maybe SKY, seem to be generally giving little air time to. This is wrong because the situation there is rapidly detieriorating by the minute and many aren't even aware how serious it has become.
Over the weekend nearly Iran and Iraq were welcomed back into the Middle eastern equivalent of the EU by nearly all the countries apart from Saudi Arabia and two others. In addtion OPEC is beginning to cause rising oil, and consequently petrol, prices. This alone will be bad for the world economy, at least in the West. Egypt has today broken diplomatic ties with Israel - another bad event because lack of communication between governments often leads to fatal misunderstanding. Israel continues its incursions whilst its own citizens are dying still from the aftermath of the Palestinian suicide bombers responsible for this new wave of violence. You've also got Arafat refusing to leave Ramallah, Palestinians holed up in the centre of Bethlehem, Hamas vowing to continue suicdie bombings and rocet attacks against Israel, Ariel Sharon unable to back down because of his own people, America stuck in the middle and facing criticism whatever it decides to do, Bush himself is trapped by his own public opinion, the UN messing around as usual on the sidelines and peace protestors seemingly trying to see how far they can push Israeli troops before they will open fire...not to mention civilians on both sides of this conflict.
In short, we could be looking at a new Middle Eastern war, and most people don't care or are too concerned with politically correct squabbling.
So thats my rant over :) Go back to watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire or something.....
With the Queen Mother passing away on Saturday the news has, rightfully, been dominated by that and stories around it. Obviously this is quite right and to be expected BUT...and there's always a but isn't there ?
The situation between Israel and Palestine, and the whole Middle East in general is a stroy that many networks, apart from CNN and Fox, and maybe SKY, seem to be generally giving little air time to. This is wrong because the situation there is rapidly detieriorating by the minute and many aren't even aware how serious it has become.
Over the weekend nearly Iran and Iraq were welcomed back into the Middle eastern equivalent of the EU by nearly all the countries apart from Saudi Arabia and two others. In addtion OPEC is beginning to cause rising oil, and consequently petrol, prices. This alone will be bad for the world economy, at least in the West. Egypt has today broken diplomatic ties with Israel - another bad event because lack of communication between governments often leads to fatal misunderstanding. Israel continues its incursions whilst its own citizens are dying still from the aftermath of the Palestinian suicide bombers responsible for this new wave of violence. You've also got Arafat refusing to leave Ramallah, Palestinians holed up in the centre of Bethlehem, Hamas vowing to continue suicdie bombings and rocet attacks against Israel, Ariel Sharon unable to back down because of his own people, America stuck in the middle and facing criticism whatever it decides to do, Bush himself is trapped by his own public opinion, the UN messing around as usual on the sidelines and peace protestors seemingly trying to see how far they can push Israeli troops before they will open fire...not to mention civilians on both sides of this conflict.
In short, we could be looking at a new Middle Eastern war, and most people don't care or are too concerned with politically correct squabbling.
So thats my rant over :) Go back to watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire or something.....
Page: