“ my solution would be every able bodied Jewish man and woman join the French (or Polish, Russian, British) army and fucking fight…”

I agree that’s the noble thing to do, but I can’t condemn the ones that choose to seek safety in numbers with Jewish Palestinians as exclusively invasion minded aggressors. My 6 million tag was maybe a bit sharp, but you also know that the Nazi’s took Paris and as much as it sucked to be French or European under Nazi occupation, you also know adding Jewish to that carried a lot of extra consequence and danger to your family.

My POV is agnostic of everything save Isreali people today having a right exist as a nation. Which at this point from my POV leaves 1947 as somewhat academic.

It’s your insistence that Jewish people, and the existence of Israel, have always fundamentally been invaders that I was objecting to as it is so intensely at odds with factual history.

You gave a brief nod on not being a scholar of Palestinian history, but then proceed to just count all Jewish refugees as good as Zionist aggressors from day 1(or close enough), and the local Arab population as nothing but pure, kind caring victims of these invaders.

I will state again, that is ahistorical propaganda and NOT what actually happened. And for my POV, its enough generations back as to be Academic, but for your POV it is fundamental because without being able to writeoff Israel as invaders from day 1, nuance enters the calculus and suddenly the conflict is flooded with shades of grey because lots of parties all contribute to the bloodshed, and many with reasonable motivations from both sides yet too.

Please find me any reputable sources to refute the reality of 1920-1940s Palestine:
-Mass Jewish immigration fleeing European oppression raised tensions between Jewish and Arab Palestinians.(as one must expect)
-Arab palestinians were already chaffing and resisting British colonial rule(as one must expect)
-These tensions led conflict, initially more ‘civil’ with the Arab majority trying to refuse all business, sales and trade with all Jews.
-Escalation followed throughout that time, but in drips and drops and NOT a ‘surprise the Zionist army has arrived’! style of aggression

The violent escalation was a fight here, a beating there. Little individual fights, escalating into deaths. Retaliations slowly grew, with each side exchanging small escalations.

-the culmination of this was eventually all out civil war, and the Jewish side immediately accepting a UN mandated 2 state solution

-this culmination coinciding with the end of WW2 and revelations of the true extent of the holocaust can’t be ignored, it certainly shaped the Jewish mindset in the conflict.

-Their mindset was pretty clearly not inaccurate either, as the immediate response of all neighbouring Arab nations was a declaration of war on the new ‘state’, with bold claims of how quickly the Jews would be swept into the sea. The confidence was so high, a call was sent it for ALL Arab palestinians to abandon and flee the entire region of Palestine to better enable the complete cleansing of the land.

The above is all pretty much inarguably factual, and I’d bargain you could get an Arabic and Israeli scholar together to more or less agree on those facts which is saying alot.

——
Propaganda from both sides would like to declare that the Arabs harboured deep Nazi sympathies, and thus Israel was pure and true in all it did. Or from the other side, more or less your narrative of Zionist bad guys launching invasion from day 1(ish).

Both though are just sprinklings of half truths, with anti-British resentment naturally breeding some leanings towards the axis, and even genuine Nazi cleanse the Jews believers. And absolutely Zionists featured prominently within the Jewish population. Neither of those partial truths though make the propaganda of either side true, but instead just an incomplete and intentionally biased picture.


Again, please find me sources demonstrating I’m terribly wrong on all that, but the only ones I can find are clearly biased and the accurate accounts paint the picture above, the propaganda very, very clearly copies the real story more or less with just deletions of inconvenient bits

I count it as a hyper generous humanitarian gift given by Palestinians on day 1 that by day 3 (year 10+-) had become an invasion of hostile violent foreigners.

Because I don’t have a perfect solution for a problem no one could solve at the time does not in any way shape or form excuse the hostile invasion or fascist racist genocidal regimes since…
…but my solution would be every able bodied Jewish man and woman join the French (or Polish, Russian, British) army and fucking fight, not run off and invade elsewhere. If they had the fighters to take Israel, they had the fighters to turn the war years earlier, but went for invasion and occupation instead.

So, you DO think the people of Haiti have the right to come to your doorstep and toss you in the street. I disagree. I reiterate, not being safe at home is no excuse to go elsewhere and make it’s inhabitants unsafe, especially if those inhabitants had nothing to do with you being unsafe, more so if they actually stuck their neck out to make some of your family safe.

I’ll try to unscramble that…”what would I have the existing Jewish Palestinian population and new refugees do with themselves once in Palestine?”…the native Jews, nothing. They’re citizens. The refugees, refugee camps of a certain size and no over crowding. Once they’re full, go elsewhere. There were other places to go, although limited. The British had an obligation to support the Palestinians and prepare them to run the country, an obligation they completely shirked and instead facilitated the invasion of hostile foreigners while keeping the Palestinians defenseless.

Fuck you 6 million. They weren’t waiting for legal avenues for immigration. Those people for the most part had no option to be refugees or decide a thing, the Germans and Polish essentially woke up one day unable to travel. The people we are talking about had over a decade, and included Germans.

No, my POV relies on the theory that you having a bad time doesn’t give you a license to murder me and steal my stuff and subjugate my descendants horrifically.
Historically many groups have had tough scary times, many ending in actual genocide. Few took that as an opportunity to do the same to another group that was trying to help them out of the tough spot. Zionists did….and with Americans help. I’ll never stop pointing it out.
The Palestinians in Gaza are suffering a genocide today. Do they have a right to go invade some weaker nation for their safety? No. That’s not reasonable or acceptable.

I think your POV relies on the theory that, because Jews were being increasingly persecuted in Europe that gives them the right to take a friendly nation by force and subjugate and persecute its people forever…

Your video, British Army performs Aretha Franklin's 'Respect' in honour, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Sorry newtboy, but you're wrong on that one. Can't find any info on Japan other than that they got their own military back in 1954. But Germany's Bundeswehr was founded in 1955 and was by the mid 60s already at over 400.000 men, to stop the "evil russians" taking over Europe (That's about the same strength as the British Army at that time).

"The police are not a 'foreign' army, like the red coats.""

Um, is this really what they taught you in those private schools you attended? Yikes! The redcoats were the British army/police. The colonies were British (until a small group of colonists claimed otherwise).

"You've spent a bunch of time and effort trying to convince me of your points"

I have done no such thing. Like I said, you've done nothing to interest me in correcting any of your errors in thinking.

"Well, I'm confused."

Yes, I'd say so.

"shirking your duty to pay taxes is theft and treasonous"

If serfdom make you happy, then by all means, be a serf! For me, there are many legal ways to avoid the non-duty. Just ask Romney and practically any/every crony and rich non-crony, and anyone who's actually paying attention. In the meantime, I've far better things to do with my time than attempting to argue you out of the kind of thinking which conduces the bottom of the social ladder.

Fast. The US is highly militarized. And its military/police are much better funded than in Mexico.

"a mob of random untrained angry armed strangers"

If they are my friends and neighbors, I would not call them a mob (I don't know how you view your friends but I don't see my friends like this) and I would trust them more than the police. So did the American Revolutionaries. They trusted their fellow colonists more than the "well regulated and trained" British Army. But even then, many trusted the establishment, the Red Coats.

And who are you even talking about? Because, to each other, they are not "random strangers." The police are the "random strangers!" For most people, anyway.

This scene comes to mind.
Like Corleone implies, it's good to know where your loyalties lie. And that of those who engage with you.

"I will trust the police. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. (and make no mistake, I don't trust the police much at all) That's just me."

Yep, that's just you, and some others, for sure. So what?

"I don't know about you"

Now you know.

And like I said: Good luck with that. I wish you the best and that you never have to 'rely' on the police to 'protect' you.

The slingshot does "hit harder" i.e. impart more momentum into the target and thus more likely to knock you down.
Intuitively this seems like it would therefore cause the most damage and for several 100 years this was the prevailing logic with muskets and cannonballs.

So much so in fact that when Charles Whitworth first introduced his rifle it was dismissed by the British army partly for having too small of a bullet. Whitworth used a smaller more stable round for its increased range and accuracy/stability (though there were also concerns about "muzzle fouling" and slower reload time).
It was believed at the time that the larger (slower) much less accurate bullets from the Enfield were more effective at actually injuring enemy soldiers, but history later demonstrated that speed and penetration can have just as much (if not more) effect on soft bodies than sheer mass and momentum.

Simply put, that large slingshot round would likely knock you to the floor in the same was as an MMA fighter landing a roundhouse square in your guts would. It might even penetrate the skin a bit and embed itself in you. What it won't do however is travel through your soft tissues at high velocity and create a large "temporary cavity" which is how most firearms do their real damage.

The 9mm etc. don't carry as much overall energy as the slingshot, but they do deliver it to a soft target much more effectively (that is to say lethally). A much more informative test would have been to fire them into ballistic clay, this would have highlighted the differences between speed, momentum and penetration much more clearly. The slingshot would leave a massive dint, the bullets would leave tunnels.

That said, the point they are making does stand to some extent. If you used that slingshot on someone that was trying to shoot you there is a good chance you'd knock them down (or at least stop them taking an aimed shot back for a few seconds). Hell you might even hospitalise them with a good shot!

It's not fair to say that the slingshot is a more "powerful" weapon but I think they did clearly demonstrate that it's a viable alternative under some circumstances. In fact for defending yourself in your own home etc. it might even be better!

Little/no risk of collateral damage (unless you miss really badly)
Very cheap
Would put most people on the floor with one good hit
No firearms licence or background checks needed
More difficult for a child to misuse (Most kids would lack the strength)
Enemy wouldn't expect it
Much less likely to kill
etc. etc.

Hell I'd get one myself if UK law wouldn't fk me over for using it.
It's illegal here to use a weapon specifically intended or kept for defense. i.e. if you grab a random object like a chair and beat up an intruder that's ok, if you have a baseball bat etc. by your bedside for expressly this purpose then it's not.
Handy then that one of my broken computer chairs happens to contain a loose 1ft long iron bar. Naturally I'd never even consider using such a thing violently, but who knows what might come to hand when faced with an intruder

(Seriously though, as broken furniture its a viable means of defence, if I kept it by my bedside as a "weapon" I'd be breaking the letter of the law by using it. Fucking stupid!)

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Ryjkyj.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/British-Army-music-video

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof= http://videosift.com/video/British-Army-music-video

*dupe=http://videosift.com/video/British-Army-music-video

dupe http://videosift.com/video/British-Army-music-video

I have heard that before...

>> ^littledragon_79:

From wikipedia:
The Canadian colonies were thinly populated and only lightly defended by the British Army. Some Americans believed that many in Upper Canada would rise up and greet a United States invading army as liberators. The combination suggested an easy conquest, as former president Thomas Jefferson seemed to believe in 1812, "the acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighbourhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent."

So it was the Canadians that did all that and not the British?

Also...
From wikipedia:
The Canadian colonies were thinly populated and only lightly defended by the British Army. Some Americans believed that many in Upper Canada would rise up and greet a United States invading army as liberators. The combination suggested an easy conquest, as former president Thomas Jefferson seemed to believe in 1812, "the acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighbourhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching, and will give us the experience for the attack on Halifax, the next and final expulsion of England from the American continent."

I guess the U.S has a long and rich history of underestimating and poorly planning foreign conflicts. Dubya is just upholding a time honored American tradition.