Bob Vylan Chants

[Blisterpack]

16 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

You keep saying this, but what is your reasoning?

Who assassinated Rabin again? And who came into power after him?

Hardliners/extremists, that’s who. Politics is a tough game and those who compromise make themselves vulnerable. See Anwar Sadat. Doesn’t mean you don’t keep trying. One problem that the flying of flags and the Free Palestine/River to the Sea movement promotes is that it gives hope to the Islamist extremists that even when they lose this battle, it will sort of continue in the west. The vilification of Israel by the next generation gives the islamists a strategic platform to keep fighting against Jews and the state of Israel.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

The most security focused nation on the planet with arguably the most effective secret service misses obvious signs of what was happening 

Yes, they must have known. Sacrifice their own people so they can obliterate Gaza. 

Next someone will start saying the zionists collaborated with the nazis in the holocaust too.

[lazyred]

27 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Just wondering how many are aware that there is compulsory military service in Israel, both for men and women. Two years at the age of 18, then regular call ups until a certain age. Therefore no one between those ages is a civilian 

Just to be clear. Are you saying all Israelis between those ages is a legitimate military target for Hamas to attack?

Also just to be clear, what about the rapes and kidnaps done by Hamas as part of the attacks?

[DeanoL]

38 minutes ago, The_Fish said:

 

Let me try to write it clearer

 

I do not think Bob Vylan calling for the IDF to die will mean anyone actually dies.

 

I think if the IDF actually dies then millions of Jews would be very quickly murdered. 

 

Calling for it doesn't mean it would happen, but it's pretty stupid to do it anyway. 

No-one is suggesting killing it off and replacing it with nothing. 

But in its current form it will have to go if there's any hope of peace in the Middle-East. There is just too much blood on its hands.

 

And again - I'd recommend looking at this from the opposite point of view if you want to understand how one-sided your point is. Israel are trying to wipe out Hamas right? Literally the stated goal of this war? And you realise Hamas, while being a terrorist organisation, are also the Gazan military force? 

 

So does the same not apply in reverse? If Hamas are killed off, will millions of Gazans not die now they have no defense? Or is the argument just that "oh Israel wouldn't do that, they'd be fine?" 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

7 minutes ago, Blisterpack said:

Hardliners/extremists, that’s who. Politics is a tough game and those who compromise make themselves vulnerable. See Anwar Sadat. Doesn’t mean you don’t keep trying. One problem that the flying of flags and the Free Palestine/River to the Sea movement promotes is that it gives hope to the Islamist extremists that even when they lose this battle, it will sort of continue in the west. The vilification of Israel by the next generation gives the islamists a strategic platform to keep fighting against Jews and the state of Israel.

But you're only interested in naming the nationality of the extremists when you're talking about Hamas. He wasn't killed by a Palestinian, was he? He was killed by... ??

 

'Doesn't mean you don't keep trying' - what on EARTH does this mean in the context of your argument? You're saying Palestine is mostly the issue when it comes to blocking peace talks, and yet in the example we're discussing, the Israeli PM who was trying to get a solution over the line was murdered by an Israeli extremist, and the next PM was Netanyahu, who began publicly unravelling the attempts that had been made. So who exactly is causing the issues here by murdering heads of state who are trying to push for a peaceful resolution, and then tearing up the progress?

 

As if the 'vilification of Israel' is a bigger factor than Israel's OWN actions in creating extreme and violent ideologies against them. It's completely backwards logic and makes no sense. 

[Skip997]

2 minutes ago, lazyred said:

Just to be clear. Are you saying all Israelis between those ages is a legitimate military target for Hamas to attack?

Also just to be clear, what about the rapes and kidnaps done by Hamas as part of the attacks?

It seems that all Palestinians, regardless of age are a legitimate military target for Israel. 
 

The rapes were a step to far as we’re kidnapping of young and old 

[DeanoL]

47 minutes ago, The_Fish said:

Hamas would do even worse to Israel if they had the capabilities to do so though. Overall they are worse than Israel. 

 

What does "even worse" look like? I'm genuinely intrigued.

 

Like, I agree, Hamas would do the same thing to Israel if they had half the chance, completely. But maybe it's a failure of my imagination but I'm struggling to see what "worse" looks like here, given Israel are leading the systematic extermination of everyone in Gaza.

[DeanoL]

23 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

They have Hamas....who carried out the attack and took hostages that triggered this response from Israel.

But we can't get rid of Hamas, because then Gaza wouldn't be able to exist? They need to be able to defend themselves?

 

Or maybe, bear with me here, if an army does something truly horrendous, commits mass murder and massive civil rights violations, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to exist? Even if they're the only defense that region has. 

[lazyred]

2 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

It seems that all Palestinians, regardless of age are a legitimate military target for Israel. 
 

The rapes were a step to far as we’re kidnapping of young and old 

You haven't answered my first question

Were the rapes and kidnaps steps too far enough to merit a response?

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

6 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

But you're only interested in naming the nationality of the extremists when you're talking about Hamas. He wasn't killed by a Palestinian, was he? He was killed by... ??

 

'Doesn't mean you don't keep trying' - what on EARTH does this mean in the context of your argument? You're saying Palestine is mostly the issue when it comes to blocking peace talks, and yet in the example we're discussing, the Israeli PM who was trying to get a solution over the line was murdered by an Israeli extremist, and the next PM was Netanyahu, who began publicly unravelling the attempts that had been made. So who exactly is causing the issues here by murdering heads of state who are trying to push for a peaceful resolution, and then tearing up the progress?

 

As if the 'vilification of Israel' is a bigger factor than Israel's OWN actions in creating extreme and violent ideologies against them. It's completely backwards logic and makes no sense. 

 

And Netanyahu was publicly calling for the death of Rabin before he was assassinated.

[Stillill42]

As far as I can make out, the only real negative from Bob Vylan's actions at Glasto has been this thread which contains some of the most execrable and depressing takes on the modern world I have read. 

[DeanoL]

10 minutes ago, lazyred said:

Just to be clear. Are you saying all Israelis between those ages is a legitimate military target for Hamas to attack?

Also just to be clear, what about the rapes and kidnaps done by Hamas as part of the attacks?

I mean, that's how war works isn't it? 

 

If Israel declares war on Hamas, they are now in an armed conflict that was declared and authorised by Israel. Which makes all their soldiers military targets. That's how conscription works and how war works. 

 

Are you saying if a country declares war on another country, that their soldiers are not legitimate targets in that war? How does that work? 

 

You can't declare war on someone and then go "but you're not allowed to fight back"!

[Skip997]

1 minute ago, lazyred said:

You haven't answered my first question

Were the rapes and kidnaps steps too far enough to merit a response?

Answer to your first question - yes

 

The rapes/kidnappings warranted a reasonable proportional response. We’ve seen a totally OTT response 

[Blisterpack]

9 minutes ago, Nobby's Old Boots said:

But you're only interested in naming the nationality of the extremists when you're talking about Hamas. He wasn't killed by a Palestinian, was he? He was killed by... ??

 

'Doesn't mean you don't keep trying' - what on EARTH does this mean in the context of your argument? You're saying Palestine is mostly the issue when it comes to blocking peace talks, and yet in the example we're discussing, the Israeli PM who was trying to get a solution over the line was murdered by an Israeli extremist, and the next PM was Netanyahu, who began publicly unravelling the attempts that had been made. So who exactly is causing the issues here by murdering heads of state who are trying to push for a peaceful resolution, and then tearing up the progress?

 

As if the 'vilification of Israel' is a bigger factor than Israel's OWN actions in creating extreme and violent ideologies against them. It's completely backwards logic and makes no sense. 

Israeli extremists killed Rabin. And Arab extremists turned their backs on Arafat for pursuing a peaceful solution. Somehow it has to work and it will only work if those prepared to compromise are allowed to do so. 

[Nobby's Old Boots]

Just now, HotChipWillBreakYourLegs said:

 

And Netanyahu was publicly calling for the death of Rabin before he was assassinated.

Exactly. 

Really really strange, with a nasty undercurrent - and as far as I can see, pretty easily debunked, to be arguing that no progress has been made in the peace talks because of Palestine. Perhaps Hamas have been hiding time machines in their tunnels seeing as though they are directly responsible for collapsing the Peel Plan in the late 1930s.

[Blisterpack]

1 minute ago, Skip997 said:

Answer to your first question - yes

 

The rapes/kidnappings warranted a reasonable proportional response. We’ve seen a totally OTT response 

But the kidnaps are still ongoing. 

[Skip997]

Just now, Blisterpack said:

But the kidnaps are still ongoing. 

Really? 
 

They’re kidnapping more people, strange it’s not made the news 

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But we can't get rid of Hamas, because then Gaza wouldn't be able to exist? They need to be able to defend themselves?

 

Or maybe, bear with me here, if an army does something truly horrendous, commits mass murder and massive civil rights violations, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to exist? Even if they're the only defense that region has. 

Yep...well the continued existence of Hamas is a red line in a ceasefire deal it seems...if they stay, no ceasefire. They don't really have any means to defend anymore, they are completely f**ked, but they do still have hostages, and they are refusing to surrender. As for IDF, yes I see what you say, but ultimately Israel are the dominant and winning power here. For anything to move forward a ceasefire is the first step.

Edited July 2, 2025 by steviewevie

[HotChipWillBreakYourLegs]

9 minutes ago, lazyred said:

You haven't answered my first question

Were the rapes and kidnaps steps too far enough to merit a response?

 

Rape as a weapon of war is horrible.

 

“How can you fight in the Middle East with Western European morals?” he demanded. “Look at Belgium, France. For their liberal values, they are losing their homeland,” Yosian said.

 

Asked if Israelis accept a reality where soldiers are given permission to emulate their enemies’ depravities, including the anal rape of prisoners, Yosian was unequivocal.

 

“My commitment to Israeli soldiers is far greater than my commitment to Hamas’s rectum.”

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-protesters-back-troops-accused-of-abuse-a-debate-erupts-on-military-morality-in-war/

Edited July 2, 2025 by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs

[DeanoL]

Just now, Blisterpack said:

But the kidnaps are still ongoing. 

Like, you're not wrong, that is a good point. But hand on heart, do you truly believe if the remaining hostages were handed over, that Israel would cease any aggression in Gaza? 

 

Like maybe you do, and I can't really argue with that. But I think the reason we're maybe talking at cross purposes here is that a lot of us think it'd make no difference whatsoever to Israel's position. And it's a counter-factual, we can't possibly know either way. 

[Blisterpack]

3 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

Really? 
 

They’re kidnapping more people, strange it’s not made the news 

Sly take that mate - you know what I mean. 

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Yep...well the continued existence of Hamas is a red line in a ceasefire deal it seems...if they stay, no ceasefire. They don't really have any means to defend anymore, they are completely f**ked, but they do still have hostages, and they are refusing to surrender. As for IFD yes I see what you say, but ultimately Israel are the dominant and winning power here. For anything to move forward a ceasefire is the first step.

And if Hamas say that the continued existence of the IDF is their red line for returning the hostages? 

 

I mean you're right, but there won't be a ceasefire. This ends with every Palestinian in Gaza dead, except for the lucky ones who managed to flee (which includes most of the Hamas leaders). It was always going to end that way.

 

But the specific discussion here is that it can be the stated governmental policy of Israel to eliminate Hamas, even though they're the only defense force Gaza has, and everyone supports a war on that basis and only starts telling Israel off when they get a bit trigger happy and kill women and children as well.

 

But to say the opposite, that the IDF should be eliminated, to say that twice on a stage at a music festival in Somerset, that's beyond the pale and needs instant condemnation. 

 

Are we truly just making that distinction based on Israel being more powerful?

[Blisterpack]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Like, you're not wrong, that is a good point. But hand on heart, do you truly believe if the remaining hostages were handed over, that Israel would cease any aggression in Gaza? 

 

Like maybe you do, and I can't really argue with that. But I think the reason we're maybe talking at cross purposes here is that a lot of us think it'd make no difference whatsoever to Israel's position. And it's a counter-factual, we can't possibly know either way. 

I think it would make a difference but I also think it would have made more of a difference a long time ago. There was a moment when Trump could have taken credit for it all ending and that’s when it should have happened. 

[lazyred]

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

You can't declare war on someone and then go "but you're not allowed to fight back"!

I completely agree

[tarw]

4 hours ago, Blisterpack said:

And nobody seemed to be mentioning or remembering it at the weekend. 

ALL lives matter!

 

to try and distract from the fact that Black Lives Matter. 
 

But What about Nova to distract from the atrocities being committed