Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Netanyahu who is wanted by the ICC " For protecting his country When are Blair and Bush being arrested for the Iraq invasion, death toll X4 that of Gaza | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Netanyahu who is wanted by the ICC For protecting his country When are Blair and Bush being arrested for the Iraq invasion, death toll X4 that of Gaza " You wouldn’t agree it seems somewhat premature for a Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded to somebody who rolls out the red carpet for potential war criminals until it has been established that Netanyahu isn’t a war criminal? I mean personally, I’m not bothered as other dubious types have got it previously so it’s a tainted honour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Netanyahu who is wanted by the ICC For protecting his country When are Blair and Bush being arrested for the Iraq invasion, death toll X4 that of Gaza " As comparisons go that's a pretty poor one and I speak as someone who matched in opposition to Bush's disastrous and unnecessary war back then.. The arbiter of whether Netanyahu has a case to answer is the ICC but he won't ever appear in front of them.. As far as I know and maybe you can let the thread know has the Un declared what took place then as genocide? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As far as I know and maybe you can let the thread know has the Un declared what took place then as genocide?" UN took three and a half years to send peacekeepers to Bosnia after an estimated 120,000 had been killed, and literally walked away from Rwanda genocide. They have no place pointing fingers | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As far as I know and maybe you can let the thread know has the Un declared what took place then as genocide? UN took three and a half years to send peacekeepers to Bosnia after an estimated 120,000 had been killed, and literally walked away from Rwanda genocide. They have no place pointing fingers " I agree with the failings you point out, however if not them as a body then whom do we have as a global entity to try to hold Nations to some sort of accountability if they act as we've seen since Oct two years ago..? Leaving such things down to the might and power of the strongest hasn't served us well as a race .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As far as I know and maybe you can let the thread know has the Un declared what took place then as genocide? UN took three and a half years to send peacekeepers to Bosnia after an estimated 120,000 had been killed, and literally walked away from Rwanda genocide. They have no place pointing fingers I agree with the failings you point out, however if not them as a body then whom do we have as a global entity to try to hold Nations to some sort of accountability if they act as we've seen since Oct two years ago..? Leaving such things down to the might and power of the strongest hasn't served us well as a race .." The problem is that the world only respects power. Look at most of the threads on the politics forum - they are about Trump. The _only_ reason anyone gives a flying fuck about him is because the Americans have the power. Power matters because it is the only thing that can shape the world. Things like the UN or the EU are, ultimately, just talking shops and they won’t ever change anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The orange wa……er is really pushing for the Nobel Peace prize. Don’t give it him for f…s sake" image being more angry about trump getting a ego award then seeing a little bit of peace and stability. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As far as I know and maybe you can let the thread know has the Un declared what took place then as genocide? UN took three and a half years to send peacekeepers to Bosnia after an estimated 120,000 had been killed, and literally walked away from Rwanda genocide. They have no place pointing fingers I agree with the failings you point out, however if not them as a body then whom do we have as a global entity to try to hold Nations to some sort of accountability if they act as we've seen since Oct two years ago..? Leaving such things down to the might and power of the strongest hasn't served us well as a race .. The problem is that the world only respects power. Look at most of the threads on the politics forum - they are about Trump. The _only_ reason anyone gives a flying fuck about him is because the Americans have the power. Power matters because it is the only thing that can shape the world. Things like the UN or the EU are, ultimately, just talking shops and they won’t ever change anything." The UN can't be looked at only in respect of a talking shop or it's failings, although one well known person once said 'meeting jaw to jaw is better than war'.. The successes of the UN under it's subsidiary body the WHO in eradication of smallpox and the reduction of polio etc in third world countries is evident.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As far as I know and maybe you can let the thread know has the Un declared what took place then as genocide? UN took three and a half years to send peacekeepers to Bosnia after an estimated 120,000 had been killed, and literally walked away from Rwanda genocide. They have no place pointing fingers I agree with the failings you point out, however if not them as a body then whom do we have as a global entity to try to hold Nations to some sort of accountability if they act as we've seen since Oct two years ago..? Leaving such things down to the might and power of the strongest hasn't served us well as a race .. The problem is that the world only respects power. Look at most of the threads on the politics forum - they are about Trump. The _only_ reason anyone gives a flying fuck about him is because the Americans have the power. Power matters because it is the only thing that can shape the world. Things like the UN or the EU are, ultimately, just talking shops and they won’t ever change anything. The UN can't be looked at only in respect of a talking shop or it's failings, although one well known person once said 'meeting jaw to jaw is better than war'.. The successes of the UN under it's subsidiary body the WHO in eradication of smallpox and the reduction of polio etc in third world countries is evident.." I am 100% behind you and I would rather it wasn’t the case that power was so powerful. Unfortunately it is. I agree there have been huge wins in things like polio eradication. You can put CFC reduction in there as well. The problem is that those are largely the exceptions. Even within the UN most things of importance are thrashed out in bilateral relationships. It definitely is the case in the EU. Those relationships are power based. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If his actions bring about lasting change for good, why should he not be considered? " He's a nasty spiteful cunt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If his actions bring about lasting change for good, why should he not be considered? He's a nasty spiteful cunt " Your comment seems very Trumpian. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If his actions bring about lasting change for good, why should he not be considered? He's a nasty spiteful cunt " I wouldn't disagree in fact there's many aspects of him which are odious and some of what he has said is fucking repulsive and he'll still be a bit of a vindictive childish arse hole if this works but it looks promising initially even if lacks details as has been said.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If his actions bring about lasting change for good, why should he not be considered? He's a nasty spiteful cunt Your comment seems very Trumpian. " 🤷♂️ He's a spiteful cunt but feel free to worship him if you wish | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If his actions bring about lasting change for good, why should he not be considered? He's a nasty spiteful cunt Your comment seems very Trumpian. 🤷♂️ He's a spiteful cunt but feel free to worship him if you wish " LOL, worship him.... 
I simply don't get bogged down by the echo chambers where offensive name calling is justified, and cheered on.
It mirrors the sentiment of what they are being offensive about in my opinion. each to their own.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If his actions bring about lasting change for good, why should he not be considered? " For someone who did not rule out taking Greenland by force, these are not the actions of a worthy recipient for tye Nobel Peace Prize. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If his actions bring about lasting change for good, why should he not be considered? " Probably for all the plus points he gains here.. he will lose a lot for the way the us vetoed all the ceasefire restrictions in the UN…. Plus the bombing of Iran…. Plus the taking out of boats off the coast of Venezuela Trying to destabilise Greenland, saying he wants to annex Canada Plus the way he is treating a lot of his own citizens to be honest He desperately wants one…. I think it would be funny if the Nobel committee gave it to the Qatar government for being the intermediaries in various disputes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sounds like things are happening The IDF reportedly started its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and is adjusting to the deployment lines outlined in the ceasefire agreement, as displaced families are making their way to Gaza City. According to the BBC, an IDF radio reporter has written on X that the military estimates troops will be at the deployment positions set out in the agreement by noon local time. Germany announced £25M humanitarian aid. Pressure needs to be kept on both sides to maintain the agreement. " I'm not a military expert, but it feels like an opportunity was lost on the humanitarian support. The US are sending 200 troops to coordinate a Middles East force, I'm unsure of the extent of the force's remit, however the US will not be entering Gaza. What was stoping a US / UK / Euro peace keeping force entering to control aid? I would have thought the presence of such troops would have kept the ceasefire in place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sounds like things are happening The IDF reportedly started its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and is adjusting to the deployment lines outlined in the ceasefire agreement, as displaced families are making their way to Gaza City. According to the BBC, an IDF radio reporter has written on X that the military estimates troops will be at the deployment positions set out in the agreement by noon local time. Germany announced £25M humanitarian aid. Pressure needs to be kept on both sides to maintain the agreement. I'm not a military expert, but it feels like an opportunity was lost on the humanitarian support. The US are sending 200 troops to coordinate a Middles East force, I'm unsure of the extent of the force's remit, however the US will not be entering Gaza. What was stoping a US / UK / Euro peace keeping force entering to control aid? I would have thought the presence of such troops would have kept the ceasefire in place. " Me neither, high risk strategy and targets for rouge Hamas fighters, USA troops would be trophy kill. Hamas killed foreign nationals from 41 countries on 7 October attacks. If Hamas break the ceasefire squadrons of F35 Israeli jets will be over Gaza, with troops from other countries at risk being drawn into crossfire | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Idf still up to an hour ago carrying out air strikes and shelling.. Ment to stop when the agreement was passed by the Knesset last night.." 72 hours for the hostage release. Hopefully not thousands of Hamas supporters lining the streets cheering on the coffins like last time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Idf still up to an hour ago carrying out air strikes and shelling.. Ment to stop when the agreement was passed by the Knesset last night.. 72 hours for the hostage release. Hopefully not thousands of Hamas supporters lining the streets cheering on the coffins like last time. " Agreed.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The orange wa……er is really pushing for the Nobel Peace prize. Don’t give it him for f…s sake" if he is to be considered for the prize then the peace should last at least a year and not a few days,,if he can get russia to leave ukraine then he should be given it,, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump has little chance of winning a Nobel, the ceremony was banging on about human rights, environmentalism, democracy, and for creating a more peaceful world through other efforts. His current actions are withdrawing from the WHO, Paris Accord, and lumping tariffs onto allies. Also as above, he’s been red carpeting Netanyahu in defiance of the ICC, threatening Greenland & Canada, UN vetoes on the Israeli/Gaza conflict, increasing authoritarianism at home… …doesn’t look like ‘the art of the deal’ is part of the Nobel prize criteria to me. " He didn't get it, a wonderful day for those that place any value on the award | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ceasefire agreed on both sides Hostages and Palestinian prisoners to be released by Tuesday USA troops sent to oversee 400 trucks of humanitarian aid distributed a day Trumps administration have achieved this, well done. " Perhaps the fear of our honest, tremendously strong and immensely powerful leader sir kier having to step in made them accept trumps deal??? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if he can get russia to leave ukraine then he should be given it, " Another conflict he didn’t start, why can’t Europe take on Russia; still buying their oil | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The man is clearly mentally unwell, churning out constant untruths, half truths, and over exaggerations every time he speaks. His latest claim that Portland is "burning down", and "burnt to the ground" on the strength of one five block neighbourhood being declared lawless by a Republican local politician, despite recorded crime data proving otherwise, is a clear indicator that Trump really has little grip on reality." Portland has one of the best bookshops in the USA (Powell's City of Books). A thriving LGBTQ+- community. And recreational use of is legal for people over 21. No wonder Trump thinks it's a war zone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump reckons China is becoming ‘very hostile’ because it is dictating terms on its exports of rate earths. His irony knows no bounds. Tide is turning on the world stage which is why Modi has doubled down, sending fawning messages to Putin after Trumps additional sanctions on India, just to wind Trump up. Trump has only put his foot to the floor & ‘made peace’ in Israel because he was shit scared the Qataris would turn the oil taps off after those cheeky Israelis bombed Doha." That may all be the case, and I’m no fan of Trump either The Gaza civilian death toll is iro 92 per day and 280 a daily casualties. Trump’s stopped that, credit where it’s due. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump could not have won it this year.... The deadline for this years nominations was Jan 31st, Trump was POTUS for just 11 days. The media have bent a lot of people over." He was a nominee, check the list for yourself 🤷♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump could not have won it this year.... The deadline for this years nominations was Jan 31st, Trump was POTUS for just 11 days. The media have bent a lot of people over. He was a nominee, check the list for yourself 🤷♂️" Where do I find the list of nominees for the 2025 Nobel peace prize? 🤷 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump could not have won it this year.... The deadline for this years nominations was Jan 31st, Trump was POTUS for just 11 days. The media have bent a lot of people over. He was a nominee, check the list for yourself 🤷♂️ Where do I find the list of nominees for the 2025 Nobel peace prize? 🤷 " Maybe they were serving on the committee the rest of us just need to live 50 years to find out who was on it .  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Trump could not have won it this year.... The deadline for this years nominations was Jan 31st, Trump was POTUS for just 11 days. The media have bent a lot of people over. He was a nominee, check the list for yourself 🤷♂️ Where do I find the list of nominees for the 2025 Nobel peace prize? 🤷 Maybe they were serving on the committee the rest of us just need to live 50 years to find out who was on it . "If you know, you know
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyway the obnoxious cunt didn't get it that's it 🤣😂" He couldn't be awarded it but that fact didn't stop the hysteria... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Anyway the obnoxious cunt didn't get it that's it 🤣😂 He couldn't be awarded it but that fact didn't stop the hysteria..." He claims Machada accepted the award on his behalf 😂🤣😂🤣😂 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"After all the bombing Obama did, he got a Nobel Prize didn’t he? Henry Kissinger also got one, which shows what a joke award it can be. We can’t let the fact that Trump is a narcissist get in the way of rational judgement. That said, he continues to host Netanyahu who is wanted by the ICC, so that is a major negative against it imo " obama got a peace prize for nothing, he was not even in office and had done nothing for this world. He got one. I am sure it helped his narcissist ego. President Trump definitely deserves one, but not sure why he is pursuing it. Hopefully just to give it back to them and tell them to stick it. These self loving world organizations, have definitely devalued themselves over the years with their political help. It is nice to see the typical Donald Trump, orangeman haters coming together and conceding the man, actually does do good! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If his actions bring about lasting change for good, why should he not be considered? " Name one thing then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If his actions bring about lasting change for good, why should he not be considered? Name one thing then." Have you read the news over the last week?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read the news over the last week? "Yes, it's saying Hammas refuse to disarm and are killing anyone in Gaza who cooperated with the Israelis. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read the news over the last week?
Yes, it's saying Hammas refuse to disarm and are killing anyone in Gaza who cooperated with the Israelis."You believe Hamas is going to scupper the ceasefire and end to the war? I hope people don’t want the peace plan to fail because of their hate of Trump, that would be a very low bar to be crawling under… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read the news over the last week?
Yes, it's saying Hammas refuse to disarm and are killing anyone in Gaza who cooperated with the Israelis.
You believe Hamas is going to scupper the ceasefire and end to the war? I hope people don’t want the peace plan to fail because of their hate of Trump, that would be a very low bar to be crawling under…"You asked if anyone had read the news, obviously you don't like that particular news so resort to being smug and insulting 🤷♂️ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read the news over the last week?
Yes, it's saying Hammas refuse to disarm and are killing anyone in Gaza who cooperated with the Israelis.
You believe Hamas is going to scupper the ceasefire and end to the war? I hope people don’t want the peace plan to fail because of their hate of Trump, that would be a very low bar to be crawling under…
You asked if anyone had read the news, obviously you don't like that particular news so resort to being smug and insulting 🤷♂️"You are being disingenuous. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read the news over the last week?
Yes, it's saying Hammas refuse to disarm and are killing anyone in Gaza who cooperated with the Israelis.
You believe Hamas is going to scupper the ceasefire and end to the war? I hope people don’t want the peace plan to fail because of their hate of Trump, that would be a very low bar to be crawling under…
You asked if anyone had read the news, obviously you don't like that particular news so resort to being smug and insulting 🤷♂️
You are being disingenuous. "Iike they said 😉 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read the news over the last week?
Yes, it's saying Hammas refuse to disarm and are killing anyone in Gaza who cooperated with the Israelis.
You believe Hamas is going to scupper the ceasefire and end to the war? I hope people don’t want the peace plan to fail because of their hate of Trump, that would be a very low bar to be crawling under…
You asked if anyone had read the news, obviously you don't like that particular news so resort to being smug and insulting 🤷♂️
You are being disingenuous.
Iike they said 😉"Really? in what way? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If his actions bring about lasting change for good, why should he not be considered? Name one thing then." https://www.instagram.com/reel/DMfCG7AsHju/?igsh=MWVnbml5d3RzM2o1dQ== Here is a number of them in the last 10 months | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see Trump is weighing up sending Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. Bad move imo from a so called peacemaker. If these start hitting Moscow, it increases (again) the likelihood of a nuclear response from the Russians. The Yanks can have no truck with it either after dropping two on Japan themselves." Trump threatens to stop sending weapons to Ukraine, Trump bad. Trump sends weapons to Ukraine, Trump bad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see Trump is weighing up sending Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. Bad move imo from a so called peacemaker. If these start hitting Moscow, it increases (again) the likelihood of a nuclear response from the Russians. The Yanks can have no truck with it either after dropping two on Japan themselves. Trump threatens to stop sending weapons to Ukraine, Trump bad. Trump sends weapons to Ukraine, Trump bad." It’s one thing using brute force to solve solutions in a one sided situation a la Israel/Gaza & quite another when you are up against the World’s biggest nuclear power. Seems to me the Warhawks in Washington want to keep pushing the Russians until they finally snap, then hope that the likes of India & China couldn’t possibly be seen to defend a nuclear strike on Ukraine, therefore isolating Russia further. Very dangerous game though. Contrast this potential isolation to how the world ostracised the US after Hiroshima & Nagasaki (not). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see Trump is weighing up sending Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. Bad move imo from a so called peacemaker. If these start hitting Moscow, it increases (again) the likelihood of a nuclear response from the Russians. The Yanks can have no truck with it either after dropping two on Japan themselves. Trump threatens to stop sending weapons to Ukraine, Trump bad. Trump sends weapons to Ukraine, Trump bad. It’s one thing using brute force to solve solutions in a one sided situation a la Israel/Gaza & quite another when you are up against the World’s biggest nuclear power. Seems to me the Warhawks in Washington want to keep pushing the Russians until they finally snap, then hope that the likes of India & China couldn’t possibly be seen to defend a nuclear strike on Ukraine, therefore isolating Russia further. Very dangerous game though. Contrast this potential isolation to how the world ostracised the US after Hiroshima & Nagasaki (not)." Doomsday scenarios are drip fed into the consciousness through Putin's words and the medias love of a "what if". I'm not saying an escalation couldn't happen, but being hand tied because of the possibility is not a place to lead from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Also.... Chy-Na! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read the news over the last week?
Yes, it's saying Hammas refuse to disarm and are killing anyone in Gaza who cooperated with the Israelis.
You believe Hamas is going to scupper the ceasefire and end to the war? I hope people don’t want the peace plan to fail because of their hate of Trump, that would be a very low bar to be crawling under…
You asked if anyone had read the news, obviously you don't like that particular news so resort to being smug and insulting 🤷♂️
You are being disingenuous.
Iike they said 😉
Really? in what way?"Are you arguing what they said isn't true then ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read the news over the last week?
Yes, it's saying Hammas refuse to disarm and are killing anyone in Gaza who cooperated with the Israelis.
You believe Hamas is going to scupper the ceasefire and end to the war? I hope people don’t want the peace plan to fail because of their hate of Trump, that would be a very low bar to be crawling under…
You asked if anyone had read the news, obviously you don't like that particular news so resort to being smug and insulting 🤷♂️
You are being disingenuous.
Iike they said 😉
Really? in what way?
Are you arguing what they said isn't true then ?"Can you explain the relevance or are you going to keep doubling down on your first comment? If its the latter, pass me by | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read the news over the last week?
Yes, it's saying Hammas refuse to disarm and are killing anyone in Gaza who cooperated with the Israelis.
You believe Hamas is going to scupper the ceasefire and end to the war? I hope people don’t want the peace plan to fail because of their hate of Trump, that would be a very low bar to be crawling under…
You asked if anyone had read the news, obviously you don't like that particular news so resort to being smug and insulting 🤷♂️
You are being disingenuous.
Iike they said 😉
Really? in what way?
Are you arguing what they said isn't true then ?
Can you explain the relevance or are you going to keep doubling down on your first comment? If its the latter, pass me by "Quite simple for anyone who has a titter of wit (My Latin teacher used to say that lol) You asked if anyone had read the news. A Google search for trump and Gaza returned that as the most current article at the particular time. Was it lies or what's the problem ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Have you read the news over the last week?
Yes, it's saying Hammas refuse to disarm and are killing anyone in Gaza who cooperated with the Israelis.
You believe Hamas is going to scupper the ceasefire and end to the war? I hope people don’t want the peace plan to fail because of their hate of Trump, that would be a very low bar to be crawling under…
You asked if anyone had read the news, obviously you don't like that particular news so resort to being smug and insulting 🤷♂️
You are being disingenuous.
Iike they said 😉
Really? in what way?
Are you arguing what they said isn't true then ?
Can you explain the relevance or are you going to keep doubling down on your first comment? If its the latter, pass me by
Quite simple for anyone who has a titter of wit (My Latin teacher used to say that lol)
You asked if anyone had read the news.
A Google search for trump and Gaza returned that as the most current article at the particular time.
Was it lies or what's the problem ?
"MAGAts love to Trumpet and don't accept criticism of the overlord | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am interested to see which no kings protest he will use as an excuse to try and use the insurrection act….." The midterm elections aren't until November 2026 so I expect he'll not use the insurrection act quite yet. The plan seems to be to use the military and ICE in blue states to stoke up enough reaction that he can claim to his base that he has the right to declare insurrection. But I think most people are aware of this tactic so I suspect he'll need to gradually turn the heat up more and more. Things will eventually melt down and I predict that there'll be major riots next summer that will give him the pretext. In the meantime he'll be building up his power by using the DOJ to prosecute any dissenting voices and to scare politicians and civil servants into submission. Any of the latter who don't submit will be fired. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well deserved if it ends the Gaza war " Trump fully supported the IDF attacks on Gaza until well past any point of serious resistance by Hamas, he funded it and provided the logistics, munitions and armaments. He stood side by side with Netanyahu against world opinion. He wanted to develop northern Gaza into a super Trump holiday destination. Then he thought he could stroke his ego with a Nobel Peace prize and flipped to offering up a peace plan that was originally created and proposed by the Biden administration. Not really a good reason to give him a Nobel prize I would have thought. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well deserved if it ends the Gaza war Trump fully supported the IDF attacks on Gaza until well past any point of serious resistance by Hamas, he funded it and provided the logistics, munitions and armaments. He stood side by side with Netanyahu against world opinion. He wanted to develop northern Gaza into a super Trump holiday destination. Then he thought he could stroke his ego with a Nobel Peace prize and flipped to offering up a peace plan that was originally created and proposed by the Biden administration. Not really a good reason to give him a Nobel prize I would have thought. " I love the rewrite of history that removes the years of Biden flooding arms into Ukraine and not even trying to broker a peace deal... The power of TDS is amazing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well deserved if it ends the Gaza war Trump .. He wanted to develop northern Gaza into a super Trump holiday destination. " Considering that 70% of the Gazan population voted in Hamas from 2005-2023 who spent 18 years spending $30 billion of foreign aid amassing weapons and digging a mindbogglingly enormous tunnel system - at the expense of their own population - - do you really think a Trump Resort style Gaza would be worse than the current sh1t they find themselves in? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well deserved if it ends the Gaza war Trump .. He wanted to develop northern Gaza into a super Trump holiday destination. Considering that 70% of the Gazan population voted in Hamas from 2005-2023 who spent 18 years spending $30 billion of foreign aid amassing weapons and digging a mindbogglingly enormous tunnel system - at the expense of their own population - - do you really think a Trump Resort style Gaza would be worse than the current sh1t they find themselves in? " The last election in Gaza was in 2006; Hamas eliminated their political opponents & took full control in 2007. To say "70% of Gazans voted for Hamas from 2005-2023" is incorrect; facts matter | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well deserved if it ends the Gaza war Trump .. He wanted to develop northern Gaza into a super Trump holiday destination. Considering that 70% of the Gazan population voted in Hamas from 2005-2023 who spent 18 years spending $30 billion of foreign aid amassing weapons and digging a mindbogglingly enormous tunnel system - at the expense of their own population - - do you really think a Trump Resort style Gaza would be worse than the current sh1t they find themselves in? The last election in Gaza was in 2006; Hamas eliminated their political opponents & took full control in 2007. To say "70% of Gazans voted for Hamas from 2005-2023" is incorrect; facts matter" I'm glad that you agree to the rest of what I wrote. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well deserved if it ends the Gaza war Trump .. He wanted to develop northern Gaza into a super Trump holiday destination. Considering that 70% of the Gazan population voted in Hamas from 2005-2023 who spent 18 years spending $30 billion of foreign aid amassing weapons and digging a mindbogglingly enormous tunnel system - at the expense of their own population - - do you really think a Trump Resort style Gaza would be worse than the current sh1t they find themselves in? The last election in Gaza was in 2006; Hamas eliminated their political opponents & took full control in 2007. To say "70% of Gazans voted for Hamas from 2005-2023" is incorrect; facts matter" I'm surprised by the lack of effort from the pro Palestine groups to bring this to the attention of the world. Palestinians not able to determine their own destiny, is surely something they should be protesting about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well deserved if it ends the Gaza war Trump .. He wanted to develop northern Gaza into a super Trump holiday destination. Considering that 70% of the Gazan population voted in Hamas from 2005-2023 who spent 18 years spending $30 billion of foreign aid amassing weapons and digging a mindbogglingly enormous tunnel system - at the expense of their own population - - do you really think a Trump Resort style Gaza would be worse than the current sh1t they find themselves in? The last election in Gaza was in 2006; Hamas eliminated their political opponents & took full control in 2007. To say "70% of Gazans voted for Hamas from 2005-2023" is incorrect; facts matter I'm glad that you agree to the rest of what I wrote. " The rest of your quote read like as Hamas used funding to amass arms, dig tunnels, then collective punishment of Gazans is justified (collective punishment is a war crime). I agree Hamas are c*nts, but it's not like Gazans have easy options to resist, change their situation; to me Gazans have lunatics living with them (Hamas) & lunatics as neighbours (parts of the Israeli government) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well deserved if it ends the Gaza war Trump .. He wanted to develop northern Gaza into a super Trump holiday destination. Considering that 70% of the Gazan population voted in Hamas from 2005-2023 who spent 18 years spending $30 billion of foreign aid amassing weapons and digging a mindbogglingly enormous tunnel system - at the expense of their own population - - do you really think a Trump Resort style Gaza would be worse than the current sh1t they find themselves in? The last election in Gaza was in 2006; Hamas eliminated their political opponents & took full control in 2007. To say "70% of Gazans voted for Hamas from 2005-2023" is incorrect; facts matter I'm glad that you agree to the rest of what I wrote. The rest of your quote read like as Hamas used funding to amass arms, dig tunnels, then collective punishment of Gazans is justified (collective punishment is a war crime). I agree Hamas are c*nts, but it's not like Gazans have easy options to resist, change their situation; to me Gazans have lunatics living with them (Hamas) & lunatics as neighbours (parts of the Israeli government)" If all things do not go Trumps way, he can grab them by the pussy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"; if the suffering is real, it deserves empathy and action " This is a very good point. "If the suffering is real". It has become clear now that every photo from Gaza thus far of starving emaciated bony children has featured only specific children suffering from specific rare diseases If there is widespread famine as reported as nasueun by the BBC, why has it been necessary to choose misleading photos? Why aren't there photos of hundreds of emaciated starving people dying in the streets? Why does every video you see now of the Palestinians dancing in the streets after the ceasefire show people who seem perfectly well fed, who have neat Well trimmed haircuts, who are wearing normal clothing (branded sportswear), who appear well groomed and freshly bathed? Have we been lied to all this time? Compare to any real famine as in African countries where the photographic evidence is stark and compelling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve noticed a troubling pattern — some people only seem to express concern for the welfare of Gaza’s civilians when it serves to criticise pro-Palestinian groups. Genuine compassion shouldn’t depend on who’s raising the issue; if the suffering is real, it deserves empathy and action regardless of who speaks up about it." I have noticed a troubling pattern too. Protesters who more concerned about the removal of the state of Israel than the lives of Palestinians stuck under a brutal terrorist regime. An equally troubling pattern is the gullible who go along with the free Palestine mantra without fully understanding what is it they are calling for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve noticed a troubling pattern — some people only seem to express concern for the welfare of Gaza’s civilians when it serves to criticise pro-Palestinian groups. Genuine compassion shouldn’t depend on who’s raising the issue; if the suffering is real, it deserves empathy and action regardless of who speaks up about it. I have noticed a troubling pattern too. Protesters who more concerned about the removal of the state of Israel than the lives of Palestinians stuck under a brutal terrorist regime. An equally troubling pattern is the gullible who go along with the free Palestine mantra without fully understanding what is it they are calling for." Hear hear. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"; if the suffering is real, it deserves empathy and action This is a very good point. "If the suffering is real". It has become clear now that every photo from Gaza thus far of starving emaciated bony children has featured only specific children suffering from specific rare diseases If there is widespread famine as reported as nasueun by the BBC, why has it been necessary to choose misleading photos? Why aren't there photos of hundreds of emaciated starving people dying in the streets? Why does every video you see now of the Palestinians dancing in the streets after the ceasefire show people who seem perfectly well fed, who have neat Well trimmed haircuts, who are wearing normal clothing (branded sportswear), who appear well groomed and freshly bathed? Have we been lied to all this time? Compare to any real famine as in African countries where the photographic evidence is stark and compelling. " Your correct people of Gaza are not starving. In fact there is so much aid going in as we all know, for over a year now, fresh food and water bath houses and barbers to get a bath and trim from. The people of Gaza live in their own homes, and not aid camps which are not receiving enough aid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do so many people assume that saying “Free Palestine” or “End the genocide in Gaza” means wanting Israel wiped off the map or Hamas left in charge? That’s a false dichotomy — and a convenient one for anyone who doesn’t want to face nuance. Recognising Palestinian suffering doesn’t erase Israel’s right to exist, just as condemning Hamas’s crimes doesn’t justify collective punishment. It’s entirely possible — and necessary — to hold all of these positions at once: – Stop the indiscriminate killing of civilians. – Ensure Israel remains secure as a state. – Dismantle and prosecute Hamas as the terrorist organisation it is. – Bring offenders on both sides to justice through due process. That isn’t naïve — it’s literally what international humanitarian law demands. The Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention exist precisely because “that’s just how the world works” used to be the excuse for every atrocity. Pretending cruelty is realism doesn’t make it wisdom. " I am curious for your opinion on the following two statements (delivered publicly by many members of the British public in full view of policemen) From the river to the sea Palestine will be free And Globalise the Intifada | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am curious for your opinion on the following two statements (delivered publicly by many members of the British public in full view of policemen) From the river to the sea Palestine will be free And Globalise the Intifada" No problem — both slogans are often misunderstood, and it’s important to remember that neither is universal among people who support Palestine. “From the river to the sea” can mean a call for equality and freedom for everyone between the Jordan and the Mediterranean — Israelis and Palestinians alike — though some use it with more extreme intent. The same goes for “Globalise the Intifada” — for many, it’s a call for worldwide solidarity and peaceful resistance against oppression, while for a few it’s used as a call for violence. It’s like “Eat the rich” — most people aren’t literally advocating cannibalism; they’re expressing frustration at injustice. Context and intent matter. I fully condemn anyone who uses these slogans to justify harm toward Israeli civilians — that isn’t resistance, it’s hate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" – Stop the indiscriminate killing of civilians. – Ensure Israel remains secure as a state. – Dismantle and prosecute Hamas as the terrorist organisation it is. – Bring offenders on both sides to justice through due process. " The problem is that no one seems to tell us how to achieve second and third point. But they just want Israel to stop attacking, which obviously puts Israel open to terrorist attacks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem is that no one seems to tell us how to achieve second and third point. But they just want Israel to stop attacking, which obviously puts Israel open to terrorist attacks." Stopping the killing of civilians doesn’t mean stopping defence. Israel has every right to target Hamas — but doing so lawfully matters. Precision operations, intelligence cooperation, and cutting off Hamas’s financing are all effective tools that don’t rely on collective punishment. History shows no military has ever bombed its way to peace. Every time civilians are killed, extremists gain sympathy and recruitment grows. Real security comes from isolating Hamas politically and economically, not from alienating millions of ordinary Palestinians. If that sounds idealistic, it’s worth remembering that the “real world” approach hasn’t worked either — decades of bombing and blockades haven’t brought security, only cycles of retaliation. Every credible counter-terrorism study shows that reducing civilian harm and offering political off-ramps weaken extremist groups far more effectively than mass strikes. Realism isn’t about accepting endless violence; it’s about doing what actually works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am curious for your opinion on the following two statements (delivered publicly by many members of the British public in full view of policemen) From the river to the sea Palestine will be free And Globalise the Intifada No problem — both slogans are often misunderstood, and it’s important to remember that neither is universal among people who support Palestine. “From the river to the sea” can mean a call for equality and freedom for everyone between the Jordan and the Mediterranean — Israelis and Palestinians alike — though some use it with more extreme intent. The same goes for “Globalise the Intifada” — for many, it’s a call for worldwide solidarity and peaceful resistance against oppression, while for a few it’s used as a call for violence. It’s like “Eat the rich” — most people aren’t literally advocating cannibalism; they’re expressing frustration at injustice. Context and intent matter. I fully condemn anyone who uses these slogans to justify harm toward Israeli civilians — that isn’t resistance, it’s hate." Right. You make all kinds of excuses for people who literally call for the ethnic cleansing of Jews out of Israel when interviewed... But Netanyahu says "Amalek" and your Olympic level mental gymnastic ability falls to the level of a d*unken toddler. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Right. You make all kinds of excuses for people who literally call for the ethnic cleansing of Jews out of Israel when interviewed... But Netanyahu says "Amalek" and your Olympic level mental gymnastic ability falls to the level of a d*unken toddler." I didn’t excuse anyone — I condemned calls for harm outright. The difference is simple: random protesters don’t command armies. Netanyahu does. When a head of state invokes “Amalek,” it isn’t rhetoric — it’s policy signalling. That’s what makes it dangerous. Anyone calling for ethnic cleansing should be investigated and prosecuted where their words constitute hate speech or incitement to violence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem is that no one seems to tell us how to achieve second and third point. But they just want Israel to stop attacking, which obviously puts Israel open to terrorist attacks. Stopping the killing of civilians doesn’t mean stopping defence. Israel has every right to target Hamas — but doing so lawfully matters. Precision operations, intelligence cooperation, and cutting off Hamas’s financing are all effective tools that don’t rely on collective punishment. " If it was that easy, October 7th wouldn't have happened. Do you think Israel didn't try any of these? " History shows no military has ever bombed its way to peace. Every time civilians are killed, extremists gain sympathy and recruitment grows. " Not true. Have you even read history before? " Real security comes from isolating Hamas politically and economically, not from alienating millions of ordinary Palestinians. " How are you going to do that? " If that sounds idealistic, it’s worth remembering that the “real world” approach hasn’t worked either — decades of bombing and blockades haven’t brought security, only cycles of retaliation. Every credible counter-terrorism study shows that reducing civilian harm and offering political off-ramps weaken extremist groups far more effectively than mass strikes. Realism isn’t about accepting endless violence; it’s about doing what actually works." The solution you are suggesting will only end in the destruction of Israel. If that's your plan to end this problem, fair enough. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""The solution you are suggesting will only end in the destruction of Israel. If that's your plan to end this problem, fair enough."" That’s a strawman. I advocated targeted, intelligence-led measures, cutting Hamas’ funding, protecting humanitarian access, and political off-ramps — steps meant to reduce civilian harm while degrading Hamas, not destroy Israel. If you think any of those make Israel less secure, name which one and offer a concrete alternative. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""The solution you are suggesting will only end in the destruction of Israel. If that's your plan to end this problem, fair enough." That’s a strawman. I advocated targeted, intelligence-led measures, cutting Hamas’ funding, protecting humanitarian access, and political off-ramps — steps meant to reduce civilian harm while degrading Hamas, not destroy Israel. If you think any of those make Israel less secure, name which one and offer a concrete alternative." These are all beautiful ideas and words. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""The solution you are suggesting will only end in the destruction of Israel. If that's your plan to end this problem, fair enough." That’s a strawman. I advocated targeted, intelligence-led measures, cutting Hamas’ funding, protecting humanitarian access, and political off-ramps — steps meant to reduce civilian harm while degrading Hamas, not destroy Israel. If you think any of those make Israel less secure, name which one and offer a concrete alternative." Lot of verbal gymnastics going on there. Do you think Israel hasn't tried any of these? First, tell me how you are going to cut Hamas funding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"These are all beautiful ideas and words." While some other others don't believe in democracy and defend war criminals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""First, tell me how you are going to cut Hamas funding."" I won’t be doing anything — I’m not in a position to. Sovereign bodies and international partners, however, have plenty of tools available. Your replies so far mostly amount to “nuh-uh” — disagreement without an alternative. Or do you actually endorse the current campaign? Because many people describe it as genocide — if you disagree, explain why, rather than just dismissing it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""The solution you are suggesting will only end in the destruction of Israel. If that's your plan to end this problem, fair enough." That’s a strawman. I advocated targeted, intelligence-led measures, cutting Hamas’ funding, protecting humanitarian access, and political off-ramps — steps meant to reduce civilian harm while degrading Hamas, not destroy Israel. If you think any of those make Israel less secure, name which one and offer a concrete alternative." Politcal off ramps, how does that work? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lot of verbal gymnastics going on there. Do you think Israel hasn't tried any of these? First, tell me how you are going to cut Hamas funding." According to Maariv (an Israeli newspaper) as late as September 2023 Mossad chief David Barnea visited Doha and authorised the transfer of funds to Hamas. Maybe the Israeli government should have tried a bit harder. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"]Politcal off ramps, how does that work?" By continuing on the path outlined by Trump's plan, imperfect as it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"]Politcal off ramps, how does that work? By continuing on the path outlined by Trump's plan, imperfect as it is." A real positive for the Trump administration, when the idea of Hamas exiting and relinquishing their power, was seen as pie in the sky. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lot of verbal gymnastics going on there. Do you think Israel hasn't tried any of these? First, tell me how you are going to cut Hamas funding. According to Maariv (an Israeli newspaper) as late as September 2023 Mossad chief David Barnea visited Doha and authorised the transfer of funds to Hamas. Maybe the Israeli government should have tried a bit harder. " Maariv is a left wing paper that will bash Bibi for anything. Anyway Hamas budget is in the billions, whatever Israel may have given it would have been a drop in the ocean. It's Qatar that needs to stop funding its proxy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The same goes for “Globalise the Intifada” — for many, it’s a call for worldwide solidarity and peaceful resistance against oppression, while for a few it’s used as a call for violence." This is crazy. It's positions like this that embolden the Jew hating Muslim who drove a car into the Manchester synagogue. Ostrich, sand, head. Why you are bending over backwards to defend Muslim extremists is beyond me | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A real positive for the Trump administration, when the idea of Hamas exiting and relinquishing their power, was seen as pie in the sky." Trump deserves credit for this. Mainly for listening to the opinions of regional players beyond Israel and for applying pressure on Netanyahu to adopt a more practical approach to the situation. Also credit to some on the left in Israel for providing some reassurance to Netanyahu that they would support him against the more extreme elements of his coalition. But there are still many problems ahead, as we saw in recent days. I don't think Hamas will be in any rush to disarm but if you read the plan it actually provides for a realistic phased transition - see point 17 "In the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the IDF to the ISF.". What happened in Northern Ireland gives us some idea of how decommisioning could work and also lessons that some fringe elements will still resort to terrorism but must be resisted. Ultimately the solution will need to be a political one where Palestinians gain the same kinds of rights as we all expect for ourselves. It's a fragile situation but there is at least more hope for both the Palestinians and Israelis than there has been for a long while. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Maariv is a left wing paper that will bash Bibi for anything. Anyway Hamas budget is in the billions, whatever Israel may have given it would have been a drop in the ocean. It's Qatar that needs to stop funding its proxy." The approval from the Israeli government was for Qatar to send money. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Why you are bending over backwards to defend Muslim extremists is beyond me"" I didn’t defend extremists — I said those who use violence should be condemned. Explaining a slogan’s wider meaning isn’t the same as endorsing its worst use. Painting all Muslims or pro-Palestine supporters as extremists is exactly how fear replaces truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Lot of verbal gymnastics going on there. Do you think Israel hasn't tried any of these? First, tell me how you are going to cut Hamas funding. According to Maariv (an Israeli newspaper) as late as September 2023 Mossad chief David Barnea visited Doha and authorised the transfer of funds to Hamas. Maybe the Israeli government should have tried a bit harder. " Yeah if Israel doesn't authorize the funds, the Hamas terrorists would be begging in the streets | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""First, tell me how you are going to cut Hamas funding." I won’t be doing anything — I’m not in a position to. Sovereign bodies and international partners, however, have plenty of tools available. " They don't. If they did, they would have used it take down the numerous terrorist groups which exist already. " Your replies so far mostly amount to “nuh-uh” — disagreement without an alternative. Or do you actually endorse the current campaign? Because many people describe it as genocide — if you disagree, explain why, rather than just dismissing it. " I am saying that what Israel is doing isn't great, but they don't have a choice if they want to defend themselves. You on the other hand, are writing about some imaginary alternatives existing. When questioned about how those alternatives work in practice, you write a lot of words like "sovereign bodies" and "international partners" without really saying anything. It's clear that you have known clue how these supposed alternatives are going to work. Unless you give a working alternative to destroy/neutralise Hamas, Israel's only option to defend themselves is what they are doing today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Why you are bending over backwards to defend Muslim extremists is beyond me" I didn’t defend extremists — I said those who use violence should be condemned. Explaining a slogan’s wider meaning isn’t the same as endorsing its worst use. Painting all Muslims or pro-Palestine supporters as extremists is exactly how fear replaces truth." Whoa... Hold on there. Nobody painted all Muslims as extremists! That's like someone referring to "German Nazis" and someone else taking that to mean that they believe all Germans are Nazis. That was all your doing, not the poster. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am saying that what Israel is doing isn't great, but they don't have a choice if they want to defend themselves. You on the other hand, are writing about some imaginary alternatives existing. When questioned about how those alternatives work in practice, you write a lot of words like "sovereign bodies" and "international partners" without really saying anything. It's clear that you have known clue how these supposed alternatives are going to work. Unless you give a working alternative to destroy/neutralise Hamas, Israel's only option to defend themselves is what they are doing today." I refuse to accept that Israel’s only legitimate means of self-defence are actions that amount to genocide or war crimes — which seems to be the implication of your argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whoa... Hold on there. Nobody painted all Muslims as extremists! That's like someone referring to "German Nazis" and someone else taking that to mean that they believe all Germans are Nazis. That was all your doing, not the poster." That’s not what I said at all. I didn’t accuse anyone of calling all Muslims extremists — I pointed out that using broad language about whole groups is how fear and misinformation spread. It’s a general observation, not a personal accusation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I am saying that what Israel is doing isn't great, but they don't have a choice if they want to defend themselves. You on the other hand, are writing about some imaginary alternatives existing. When questioned about how those alternatives work in practice, you write a lot of words like "sovereign bodies" and "international partners" without really saying anything. It's clear that you have known clue how these supposed alternatives are going to work. Unless you give a working alternative to destroy/neutralise Hamas, Israel's only option to defend themselves is what they are doing today. I refuse to accept that Israel’s only legitimate means of self-defence are actions that amount to genocide or war crimes — which seems to be the implication of your argument." I don't think they are committing genocide. This is just you making a strawman argument. Israel doesn't have any alternative but to go after Hamas at all costs. Considering how terrorist groups like Hamas operate by deliberately putting innocent people in danger, many innocent people are going to die. There is no solution that doesn't involve neutralising Hamas. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think they are committing genocide. This is just you making a strawman argument. Israel doesn't have any alternative but to go after Hamas at all costs. Considering how terrorist groups like Hamas operate by deliberately putting innocent people in danger, many innocent people are going to die. There is no solution that doesn't involve neutralising Hamas." I notice you ignored the war crimes part. The ICJ and multiple human-rights bodies have already recognised credible evidence of both genocide and war crimes in Gaza. Nobody’s arguing Hamas shouldn’t be confronted; the issue is whether that’s being done lawfully and without collective punishment. “At all costs” is not a legal or moral defence under international law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Israel's only option to defend themselves is what they are doing today." You defend war crimes, are opposed to democracy and support a government with a senior minister who describes himself as a far-right person, a homophobe, racist, and fascist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Israel's only option to defend themselves is what they are doing today. You defend war crimes, are opposed to democracy and support a government with a senior minister who describes himself as a far-right person, a homophobe, racist, and fascist. " Just another post where you make claims about things I have never said. You are only getting more and more blatant about it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think they are committing genocide. This is just you making a strawman argument. Israel doesn't have any alternative but to go after Hamas at all costs. Considering how terrorist groups like Hamas operate by deliberately putting innocent people in danger, many innocent people are going to die. There is no solution that doesn't involve neutralising Hamas. I notice you ignored the war crimes part. The ICJ and multiple human-rights bodies have already recognised credible evidence of both genocide and war crimes in Gaza. Nobody’s arguing Hamas shouldn’t be confronted; the issue is whether that’s being done lawfully and without collective punishment. “At all costs” is not a legal or moral defence under international law." There is no such thing as international law. When it comes to self defense, no one is going to listen to your opinions or the opinions of some bureaucrats pretending to be powerful. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think they are committing genocide. This is just you making a strawman argument. Israel doesn't have any alternative but to go after Hamas at all costs. Considering how terrorist groups like Hamas operate by deliberately putting innocent people in danger, many innocent people are going to die. There is no solution that doesn't involve neutralising Hamas. I notice you ignored the war crimes part. The ICJ and multiple human-rights bodies have already recognised credible evidence of both genocide and war crimes in Gaza. Nobody’s arguing Hamas shouldn’t be confronted; the issue is whether that’s being done lawfully and without collective punishment. “At all costs” is not a legal or moral defence under international law." The crime of Genocide has not been established here and the ICJ have said this. A finding by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of plausible evidence of genocide does not mean the state is actually guilty of genocide. ?The ICJ finding, you keep referring to, signifies: ?Context: Provisional Measures: The finding of "plausibility" is typically made by the ICJ at the preliminary stage of a case, specifically when deciding whether to issue provisional measures (like injunctions or cease-and-desist orders) to protect the rights of the group in question while the full case proceeds. ?Lower Standard of Proof: To order provisional measures, the Court only needs to determine that: ?It has prima facie (at first glance) jurisdiction. ?The rights claimed by the applicant state are plausible (i.e., they are rights guaranteed by the Genocide Convention and the alleged facts appear capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention). ?There is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to those rights before a final judgment can be rendered. ?No Final Determination of Guilt: The Court EXPLICITLY states at this stage that its finding of plausibility does not settle the ultimate question of whether the state has violated the Genocide Convention. That final determination requires a much more rigorous process and a much higher standard of proof (often described as requiring "fully conclusive" evidence and proof of the specific "genocidal intent" to destroy the group as such). ?Further Process Required: The finding of plausible evidence leads to the issuance of provisional measures, and the case then moves forward to the merits phase, where the applicant state must attempt to prove the charge of genocide against the defendant state. This final judgment phase can take several years. ?In summary, "plausible evidence of genocide" is a significant early step that allows the ICJ to issue binding orders to prevent potential harm, but it is not a final verdict of guilt. The full legal process must be completed to establish whether the state is ultimately responsible for violating the Genocide Convention. So at this moment in time Israel has not been found guilty of genocide, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think they are committing genocide. This is just you making a strawman argument. Israel doesn't have any alternative but to go after Hamas at all costs. Considering how terrorist groups like Hamas operate by deliberately putting innocent people in danger, many innocent people are going to die. There is no solution that doesn't involve neutralising Hamas. I notice you ignored the war crimes part. The ICJ and multiple human-rights bodies have already recognised credible evidence of both genocide and war crimes in Gaza. Nobody’s arguing Hamas shouldn’t be confronted; the issue is whether that’s being done lawfully and without collective punishment. “At all costs” is not a legal or moral defence under international law.The crime of Genocide has not been established here and the ICJ have said this. A finding by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of plausible evidence of genocide does not mean the state is actually guilty of genocide. ?The ICJ finding, you keep referring to, signifies: ?Context: Provisional Measures: The finding of "plausibility" is typically made by the ICJ at the preliminary stage of a case, specifically when deciding whether to issue provisional measures (like injunctions or cease-and-desist orders) to protect the rights of the group in question while the full case proceeds. ?Lower Standard of Proof: To order provisional measures, the Court only needs to determine that: ?It has prima facie (at first glance) jurisdiction. ?The rights claimed by the applicant state are plausible (i.e., they are rights guaranteed by the Genocide Convention and the alleged facts appear capable of falling within the provisions of the Convention). ?There is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to those rights before a final judgment can be rendered. ?No Final Determination of Guilt: The Court EXPLICITLY states at this stage that its finding of plausibility does not settle the ultimate question of whether the state has violated the Genocide Convention. That final determination requires a much more rigorous process and a much higher standard of proof (often described as requiring "fully conclusive" evidence and proof of the specific "genocidal intent" to destroy the group as such). ?Further Process Required: The finding of plausible evidence leads to the issuance of provisional measures, and the case then moves forward to the merits phase, where the applicant state must attempt to prove the charge of genocide against the defendant state. This final judgment phase can take several years. ?In summary, "plausible evidence of genocide" is a significant early step that allows the ICJ to issue binding orders to prevent potential harm, but it is not a final verdict of guilt. The full legal process must be completed to establish whether the state is ultimately responsible for violating the Genocide Convention. So at this moment in time Israel has not been found guilty of genocide, Mrs x" I utilised Gemini again for my answer. No state has ever been found guilty of genocide by the ICJ, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps if you said you condemn war crimes, fully support democracy and denounce a cabinet that includes someone who calls themselves a homophobic racist fascist I'd have greater confidence that your opinons have any merit. " What War Crimes have either side committed, had due process and been found guilty of? Outside the Court of Public Opinion I mean. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""There is no such thing as international law. When it comes to self defense, no one is going to listen to your opinions or the opinions of some bureaucrats pretending to be powerful."" That’s not an argument so much as a dismissal. International law is real: states ratify treaties (Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions), the ICJ can issue binding provisional measures and investigate, and the ICC can pursue individual criminal responsibility. Enforcement isn’t perfect — which is why critics push for accountability — but saying “it doesn’t exist” doesn’t change the facts or the legal obligations states accepted. And “self-defence at all costs” isn’t a legal or moral licence to commit atrocities. The laws of war were written exactly to prevent that kind of blank-cheque reasoning. If you think there are no lawful alternatives to degrading an armed group, name one concrete, realistic example — otherwise arguing “anything goes” is just a defence for collective punishment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whoa... Hold on there. Nobody painted all Muslims as extremists! That's like someone referring to "German Nazis" and someone else taking that to mean that they believe all Germans are Nazis. That was all your doing, not the poster. That’s not what I said at all. I didn’t accuse anyone of calling all Muslims extremists — I pointed out that using broad language about whole groups is how fear and misinformation spread. It’s a general observation, not a personal accusation." Like all Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are hooligans? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""So at this moment in time Israel has not been found guilty of genocide"" Of course — and as I’ve already explained to you before, the ICJ hasn’t issued a final verdict yet. But that’s not the point. The Court found the risk and evidence of genocide *plausible enough* to impose binding provisional measures, which is an extraordinary step under international law. That means the judges saw credible indications that acts meeting the definition of genocide could be occurring — and ordered Israel to prevent them. Dismissing that as meaningless ignores the severity of what “plausibility” means in this legal context. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""What War Crimes have either side committed, had due process and been found guilty of? Outside the Court of Public Opinion I mean."" That isn’t the point. If you saw someone kill another person in front of you, would you really suspend all judgment until a years-long trial concluded — or worse, until they were convicted (if ever)? Legal due process determines punishment, not whether an act was wrong or unlawful. The ICJ and multiple human-rights bodies have already identified credible evidence of war crimes; pretending they don’t exist until a final ruling is just moral evasion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is no such thing as international law. When it comes to self defense, no one is going to listen to your opinions or the opinions of some bureaucrats pretending to be powerful." And you don't believe in international law. This was the kind of stuff I was talking about when you first said you were a fan of Nietzsche. You've created your own moral system that can conveniently just ignore concepts lke law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is no such thing as international law. When it comes to self defense, no one is going to listen to your opinions or the opinions of some bureaucrats pretending to be powerful. And you don't believe in international law. This was the kind of stuff I was talking about when you first said you were a fan of Nietzsche. You've created your own moral system that can conveniently just ignore concepts lke law." It looks like you haven't read a single word Nietzsche You know it's ok to admit that you don't know something. That's much better than pretending that you know and making such lame posts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Like all Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are hooligans?"" I’m not sure what that’s referring to — I haven’t mentioned that club. But no group of fans from any club can be fairly described as *entirely* anything. That was my point — generalising whole groups based on the actions of a few is how stereotypes take hold. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""There is no such thing as international law. When it comes to self defense, no one is going to listen to your opinions or the opinions of some bureaucrats pretending to be powerful." That’s not an argument so much as a dismissal. International law is real: states ratify treaties (Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions), the ICJ can issue binding provisional measures and investigate, and the ICC can pursue individual criminal responsibility. Enforcement isn’t perfect — which is why critics push for accountability — but saying “it doesn’t exist” doesn’t change the facts or the legal obligations states accepted. And “self-defence at all costs” isn’t a legal or moral licence to commit atrocities. The laws of war were written exactly to prevent that kind of blank-cheque reasoning. If you think there are no lawful alternatives to degrading an armed group, name one concrete, realistic example — otherwise arguing “anything goes” is just a defence for collective punishment." A law is real only if there are mechanisms to enforce it. If it was really an "international law" so many countries in the world should be punished before Israel who are acting only for self defense. e We are going around in circles anyway. Let me know when you have an alternative workable plan to neutralise Hamas. Otherwise there is no point in anything you say. No one, especially Israel, when their personal safety is at stake, is going to give a damn about the opinions of a random no one like you or that of the suit wearing bureaucrats who pretend like they somehow have the moral superiority over the rest of the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What War Crimes have either side committed, had due process and been found guilty of? Outside the Court of Public Opinion I mean. Mrs x" So by that reasoning are you saying that the atrocities of 7th October 2023 haven't been shown to be war crimes and therefore there's absolutely no legal justification for Israel to have retaliated and laid waste to Gaza? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Like all Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are hooligans?" I’m not sure what that’s referring to — I haven’t mentioned that club. But no group of fans from any club can be fairly described as *entirely* anything. That was my point — generalising whole groups based on the actions of a few is how stereotypes take hold." That is good to hear, I assume you support Israeli Jewish football fans being allowed to visit Birmingham and support their team? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It looks like you haven't read a single word Nietzsche You know it's ok to admit that you don't know something. That's much better than pretending that you know and making such lame posts." We had a very long discussion about this and why I think Nietzsche was a nice enough guy but his ideas are corrosive and that much of existentialist thinking that followed on from him is total bollocks. Your comments on morality and law are evidence that I was right. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "A law is real only if there are mechanisms to enforce it... Let me know when you have an alternative workable plan to neutralise Hamas. Otherwise there is no point in anything you say." " You’re going in circles here. You demand a concrete alternative, then dismiss every practical tool listed as “unrealistic” without saying which one you reject or why. That’s not a serious challenge — it’s a moving goalpost. If you want a real debate, pick **one** of the concrete measures (sanctions/asset freezes, arms interdiction, targeted intel-led ops with oversight, cutting finance, or international legal action) and explain why you think it can’t work. Or be honest: do you accept that the only acceptable option to you is the current indiscriminate campaign? Say which — and accept the implication. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Like all Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are hooligans?" I’m not sure what that’s referring to — I haven’t mentioned that club. But no group of fans from any club can be fairly described as *entirely* anything. That was my point — generalising whole groups based on the actions of a few is how stereotypes take hold. That is good to hear, I assume you support Israeli Jewish football fans being allowed to visit Birmingham and support their team?" I’m not a football fan and don’t really follow what’s happening there, so I can’t comment on that situation. My point was just about generalisation — it applies to any group, not a specific team. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""So at this moment in time Israel has not been found guilty of genocide" Of course — and as I’ve already explained to you before, the ICJ hasn’t issued a final verdict yet. But that’s not the point. The Court found the risk and evidence of genocide *plausible enough* to impose binding provisional measures, which is an extraordinary step under international law. That means the judges saw credible indications that acts meeting the definition of genocide could be occurring — and ordered Israel to prevent them. Dismissing that as meaningless ignores the severity of what “plausibility” means in this legal context." I've not dismissed it as meaningless but I'm not. You say this because I'm ignoring the severity of what 'plausibilty" means in this legal context. However in legal terms ?"Plausible" relates to the sufficiency of the initial allegations, ensuring a case has a factual basis to proceed and not be dismissed. It has a low evidentiary standard. The ICJ establishing this place measures on a state to prohibited potential acts it is ruling upon. But a state can put up arguments to say they are not committing such acts and are complying with International Law, in this case relating to genocide. Israel have denied that they are committing Genocide. "Israel's main response to the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) finding of plausible evidence of genocide and its subsequent provisional measures has been a mixture of rejection, legal defense, and claims of compliance. ?Key Components of Israel's Response ?Rejection of the Genocide Allegation: Israel has strongly rejected the accusation of committing genocide, calling South Africa's case a distortion of the Genocide Convention and "disgraceful." ?It maintains that its military operation in Gaza is a right to self-defense following the October 7 attacks by Hamas, and is aimed at dismantling Hamas and securing the release of hostages, not destroying the Palestinian people. ?Israel presented legal arguments to the ICJ defending its actions and intent, insisting its actions comply with international law. ?Relief on Lack of Ceasefire Order: The Israeli government expressed relief that the ICJ did not order a complete cessation of its military operations, as requested by South Africa. ?Conditional Acceptance of Provisional Measures: While rejecting the underlying genocide claim, Israel stated it accepted the ICJ's authority and would comply with the provisional measures issued, which are legally binding. ?The measures primarily ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide (such as killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction), prevent and punish public incitement to genocide, and ensure the provision of basic services and humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza. ?Claims of Compliance and Focus on Hamas: Israel has publicly claimed to be taking steps to comply with the measures, particularly in facilitating humanitarian aid and investigating and addressing incitement" ...AI On the previous cases were the ICJ has issued prohibitive measures on a finding of plausible evidence, no state was subsequently found guilty. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "On the previous cases where the ICJ has issued prohibitive measures on a finding of plausible evidence, no state was subsequently found guilty." " That’s not the point I made, and you’ve skipped the heart of it. If you watch someone commit a killing in front of you, you don’t pretend nothing happened until a court delivers a verdict years later — especially if more people could die in the meantime. The ICJ’s provisional measures exist for exactly that reason: to prevent irreversible harm while evidence is still being examined. Whether or not Israel is ultimately found guilty, it has already been *ordered* to prevent the very acts under investigation. That’s not a final conviction — but it’s a serious legal warning, not a formality. And under that same order, Israel has — by its own admission — once again violated international humanitarian law by blocking aid and fuel into Gaza last week. Denying humanitarian access is explicitly listed as a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, and doing so while under ICJ provisional measures only strengthens the case against them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""Like all Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are hooligans?" I’m not sure what that’s referring to — I haven’t mentioned that club. But no group of fans from any club can be fairly described as *entirely* anything. That was my point — generalising whole groups based on the actions of a few is how stereotypes take hold. That is good to hear, I assume you support Israeli Jewish football fans being allowed to visit Birmingham and support their team? I’m not a football fan and don’t really follow what’s happening there, so I can’t comment on that situation. My point was just about generalisation — it applies to any group, not a specific team." You should look into this, it goes directly against your beliefs. Jewish football fans from Israel being stopped from attending their teams game against Aston Villa. Apparently, they are all tarred with the same brush, however the police are concerned about antisemitism attacks from locals and hooliganism from some fans.. Ban travel or allow travel, what are your thoughts? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""What War Crimes have either side committed, had due process and been found guilty of? Outside the Court of Public Opinion I mean." That isn’t the point. If you saw someone kill another person in front of you, would you really suspend all judgment until a years-long trial concluded — or worse, until they were convicted (if ever)? Legal due process determines punishment, not whether an act was wrong or unlawful. The ICJ and multiple human-rights bodies have already identified credible evidence of war crimes; pretending they don’t exist until a final ruling is just moral evasion." You do realise that that's exactly how a legal system works. Judgement can only occur AFTER a trial bot before it. Your statement that... "Legal due process determines punishment, not whether an act was wrong or unlawful." ... is probably the most ridiculous thing I've read in a while. Of course 'due process' determines whether an act was wrong or unlawful, its that process that determines guilt. It does not determine punishment, tariffs, statutes and precedent decide punishment. Of course evidence exists, thats why the ICJ issued the prohibitive measures. However this evidence does not establish guilt and the ICJ have EXPLICITLY stated this. It just means that this evidence will be looked at in a later hearing. At this hearing Israel will present its defence and only then will a decision over guilt be established. This will take years and as I've already stated NO STATE has ever been found guilty of genocide by the ICJ. The evidentiary standard is extremely high at this point in proceedings. Unfortunately this is reality not 'moral invasion'. So instead of wanting there to be a proper trial, protection under the law, due process and the like, you'd just want a state to be found guilty on 'say so'. It's as if opinions are more important than facts for you. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It looks like you haven't read a single word Nietzsche You know it's ok to admit that you don't know something. That's much better than pretending that you know and making such lame posts. We had a very long discussion about this and why I think Nietzsche was a nice enough guy but his ideas are corrosive and that much of existentialist thinking that followed on from him is total bollocks. Your comments on morality and law are evidence that I was right." All your comments on that thread were clearly AI slop and you haven't read a single book written by him. Again, it's much better to admit that you don't know something instead of pretending like you know it and making a fool of yourself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "You do realise that that's exactly how a legal system works. Judgement can only occur AFTER a trial not before it." " That’s precisely why the ICJ issues *provisional measures* — to prevent further harm while a full trial determines guilt. Due process and precaution aren’t opposites; they work together. The ICJ doesn’t need to deliver a verdict to order a state to stop potential violations — it only needs credible evidence that irreparable harm could occur if it doesn’t act. If a house is on fire, you don’t wait for the arson conviction before you call the fire brigade. You stop the damage first — that’s what the ICJ measures are for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "A law is real only if there are mechanisms to enforce it... Let me know when you have an alternative workable plan to neutralise Hamas. Otherwise there is no point in anything you say." You’re going in circles here. You demand a concrete alternative, then dismiss every practical tool listed as “unrealistic” without saying which one you reject or why. That’s not a serious challenge — it’s a moving goalpost. If you want a real debate, pick **one** of the concrete measures (sanctions/asset freezes, arms interdiction, targeted intel-led ops with oversight, cutting finance, or international legal action) and explain why you think it can’t work. Or be honest: do you accept that the only acceptable option to you is the current indiscriminate campaign? Say which — and accept the implication. " I asked you about how you stop funding Hamas and I am yet to hear a valid response other than some garbage terms which you know yourself that doesn't have anything to do with stopping funding of a terrorist organisation. You haven't said a single practical alternative yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "On the previous cases where the ICJ has issued prohibitive measures on a finding of plausible evidence, no state was subsequently found guilty." That’s not the point I made, and you’ve skipped the heart of it. If you watch someone commit a killing in front of you, you don’t pretend nothing happened until a court delivers a verdict years later — especially if more people could die in the meantime. The ICJ’s provisional measures exist for exactly that reason: to prevent irreversible harm while evidence is still being examined. Whether or not Israel is ultimately found guilty, it has already been *ordered* to prevent the very acts under investigation. That’s not a final conviction — but it’s a serious legal warning, not a formality. And under that same order, Israel has — by its own admission — once again violated international humanitarian law by blocking aid and fuel into Gaza last week. Denying humanitarian access is explicitly listed as a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, and doing so while under ICJ provisional measures only strengthens the case against them." But if Israel can provide a legitimate reason in law for behaving in such a way then they are not committing any offense. You, I pr the ICJ do not know if Israel has a legitimate defense because it wont be heard at this stage, yet you are already proclaiming guilty. You are like an angry mob, demanding justice outside a court house for someone being tried for a heinous crime. Only to find out afterwards that they were utterly innocent, would you feel daft. Just wait to find out, for fuck sake even the Nazis were given a trial, allowed to give their defence before they were hung. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "You do realise that that's exactly how a legal system works. Judgement can only occur AFTER a trial not before it." That’s precisely why the ICJ issues *provisional measures* — to prevent further harm while a full trial determines guilt. Due process and precaution aren’t opposites; they work together. The ICJ doesn’t need to deliver a verdict to order a state to stop potential violations — it only needs credible evidence that irreparable harm could occur if it doesn’t act. If a house is on fire, you don’t wait for the arson conviction before you call the fire brigade. You stop the damage first — that’s what the ICJ measures are for." OMG you are doing it again, assuming it was arson, couldn't have been a chip pan fire, faulty electrics whatever. Just as well you arent a judge, criminal misjustice cases would skyrocket. Wait for the process to conclude, Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "I asked you about how you stop funding Hamas and I am yet to hear a valid response other than some garbage terms which you know yourself that doesn't have anything to do with stopping funding of a terrorist organisation. You haven't said a single practical alternative yet." " Neither have you. You’ve dismissed every realistic proposal without offering one yourself — that’s not debate, that’s deflection. International coordination on sanctions, asset tracing, and diplomatic pressure are practical tools already used against terror groups worldwide. Pretending they don’t exist doesn’t make them fantasy; it just shows you’re unwilling to engage with how they work. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "OMG you are doing it again, assuming it was arson, couldn't have been a chip pan fire, faulty electrics whatever. Just as well you arent a judge, criminal misjustice cases would skyrocket. Wait for the process to conclude." " You’ve missed the analogy — it isn’t about blame, it’s about *preventing harm while you find out*. The ICJ’s provisional measures don’t declare guilt any more than a fire brigade does; they stop a crisis from escalating while evidence is examined. That’s how the process works: precaution first, verdict later. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "I asked you about how you stop funding Hamas and I am yet to hear a valid response other than some garbage terms which you know yourself that doesn't have anything to do with stopping funding of a terrorist organisation. You haven't said a single practical alternative yet." Neither have you. You’ve dismissed every realistic proposal without offering one yourself — that’s not debate, that’s deflection. " That's because you haven't given a single realistic proposal. " International coordination on sanctions, asset tracing, and diplomatic pressure are practical tools already used against terror groups worldwide. " You do know that these terrorist organisations are supported by different nation states right? So what the hell do you mean international cooperation? And it's not like they are using a HSBC bank account to send money for you to trace it just like that. " Pretending they don’t exist doesn’t make them fantasy; it just shows you’re unwilling to engage with how they work." You are the one who is pretending here. If cutting funding to terrorists were possible, it would have been already done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That statement... "Legal due process determines punishment, NOT whether an act was wrong or unlawful..." Still making me titter, brilliant, Mrs x" You’re right — I worded that badly earlier, and it implied something I didn’t mean. What I should’ve said is that due process determines legal guilt and punishment, but we don’t have to suspend moral or factual judgment until a verdict. Recognising credible evidence of wrongdoing isn’t the same as declaring someone guilty — it’s about acknowledging the evidence that already exists while due process runs its course and ensuring harm is reduced in the meantime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""You haven't said a single practical alternative yet."" When your defence of Israel extends to excusing thousands of dead children as “necessary,” it stops sounding like self-defence and starts sounding like justification for atrocity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "OMG you are doing it again, assuming it was arson, couldn't have been a chip pan fire, faulty electrics whatever. Just as well you arent a judge, criminal misjustice cases would skyrocket. Wait for the process to conclude." You’ve missed the analogy — it isn’t about blame, it’s about *preventing harm while you find out*. The ICJ’s provisional measures don’t declare guilt any more than a fire brigade does; they stop a crisis from escalating while evidence is examined. That’s how the process works: precaution first, verdict later." OMG it does not, its from the 'plausibility standard' used primarily by the American legal system at first instance. It is used to see whether its plausible, from the initial evidence, for a trial to take place. The ICJs prohibitive measures relate to the evidence supplied by the applicant state. If they havent got a legitimate defense, to these allegations, they must abide in full by the courts initial measure. However the defendant state may refuse this evidence, and subsequent allegation, giving, what they consider to be a legitimate defence to this. They may choose to then carry on, believing tgey are justified in doing so. It's only at a later date, the Merit stage where the case is heard in full. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
""You haven't said a single practical alternative yet." When your defence of Israel extends to excusing thousands of dead children as “necessary,” it stops sounding like self-defence and starts sounding like justification for atrocity." What does you wanting Israel to let Hamas grow again and attack them sound like? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All your comments on that thread were clearly AI slop and you haven't read a single book written by him. Again, it's much better to admit that you don't know something instead of pretending like you know it and making a fool of yourself" Your repeated use of Mr Wooly's fallacy is making you look childish. None of my posts on that thread or any other thread were AI generated apart from once when I attributed it to AI in that post. This was about French productivity in relation to UK productivity and I was very short of time. You seem incapable of addressing arguments without the use of fallacy. But you are right I've not read any of Nietzsche books, I've only read extensive commentary and that's been enough to give me an idea that it would be a waste of time. I've read the bible and that was a waste of time. I've not read all kinds of books because there are a lot of them but just because I've not read the works of all kinds of people doesn't mean I know nothing about them. I've never read the Art of the Deal, does that mean I don't know anything about Trump? I've never read Principia Mathematica but I've coded things like partical physics in many of my games using Newtonian formula so I probably know more about Newtonian physics than most people here. Perhaps if you stopped using fallacies and made direct arguments we could make more progress on mutual understanding. But I suspect you have little interest in mutual understanding. I genuinely don't know why you find it hard to condemn war crimes, anti-democratic subjugation and a cabinet containing a self-professed homophobic fascist. I'm curious to learn why as so far the only real clue is your Nietzschean philosophy and apparent dislike for Muslims. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I've read the bible and that was a waste of time. I've not read all kinds of books because there are a lot of them but just because I've not read the works of all kinds of people doesn't mean I know nothing about them. I've never read the Art of the Deal, does that mean I don't know anything about Trump? I've never read Principia Mathematica but I've coded things like partical physics in many of my games using Newtonian formula so I probably know more about Newtonian physics than most people here. " Existentialism isn't a topic you can grasp easily without reading the actual philosophical writings. Nietzsche's views are even harder to do so. The long essays you wrote in the that thread and frequent references to Nietzsche you made in the other threads showed that you have no clue what you were talking about. You don't have to read Principia Mathematica to understand Newton's laws. But you need to put a lot of effort to understand it, at least by reading other literature. Same with philosophy. You think you could make Google searches and reply to pretend like you understand it. You only proved that you have no clue about the topic. As I said multiple times, it's better to admit that you don't understand something instead of pretending you do and hoping that AI will save your ass. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That statement... "Legal due process determines punishment, NOT whether an act was wrong or unlawful..." Still making me titter, brilliant, Mrs x You’re right — I worded that badly earlier, and it implied something I didn’t mean. What I should’ve said is that due process determines legal guilt and punishment, but we don’t have to suspend moral or factual judgment until a verdict. Recognising credible evidence of wrongdoing isn’t the same as declaring someone guilty — it’s about acknowledging the evidence that already exists while due process runs its course and ensuring harm is reduced in the meantime." You need to think about what you have written if you dont want to imply something you dont mean. For instance you say you shouldn't "suspend moral...judgement before a verdict" but that's simply not true. You MUST suspend morality before a verdict. In fact you should suspend it throughout the entirety of a criminal trial. Morality is subjective and should not form part of your judgement in deciding a case. Defense barristers do this all the time. They defend clients they dont agree with personally, doing so under the letter of the law, they may not like their clients or agree with them on a personal level but they supply the beat defence possible because that's what the law demands. It's the same for position for jurors. You also mention not suspending factual judgement until a verdict. Again this is totally wrong because until the end of a trial you wont have heard all the facts. Both sides need the opportunity to voice their side and that's what due process allows. I could tell you I stabbed someone and killed them. At this point it may seem im banged to rights,But more evidence shows that the person I stabbed broke into my home, it was his knife, which he brought with him, with the intention of killing my hubby and I in our sleep. I apprehended him and in the struggle I grabbed the knife and fearing for my life I stabbed him and he died from his wounds... INNOCENT. Then you find out that what I said was true but what I hadn't said was that after grabbing the knife, the attacker fled from our home. Full of adrenaline I chased after him and after half a mile I caught up to him and still fearing for my life, I stabbed him 17 times... GUILTY. This goes to show you need all the facts in order to establish guilt. Thats why due process is so important. Everyone has the right to answer allegations put to them before any judgement is made. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
