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 |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember when Spain tried this and then found out their defenses were totally dependent on Israeli tech. 🤣 Jewish people are 0.2% of the global population and have won 220 Nobel Prizes, 20% of the total. But knock yourself out OP, good luck with all those amazing Iranian inventions. 🤣🤣🤣" Iranian inventions what sort of slabbering is that ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember when Spain tried this and then found out their defenses were totally dependent on Israeli tech. 🤣 Jewish people are 0.2% of the global population and have won 220 Nobel Prizes, 20% of the total. But knock yourself out OP, good luck with all those amazing Iranian inventions. 🤣🤣🤣" The above sounds a bit racist to me. Lording the achievements of one race in order to make other races appear inferior? How does it feel to be on the side of dwindling public opinion? Pro-Israelis are a minority in both the UK & US at the moment you know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember when Spain tried this and then found out their defenses were totally dependent on Israeli tech. 🤣 Jewish people are 0.2% of the global population and have won 220 Nobel Prizes, 20% of the total. But knock yourself out OP, good luck with all those amazing Iranian inventions. 🤣🤣🤣 The above sounds a bit racist to me. Lording the achievements of one race in order to make other races appear inferior? How does it feel to be on the side of dwindling public opinion? Pro-Israelis are a minority in both the UK & US at the moment you know. " I only care about being on the right side, which I am.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well ?" A) yes…. B) they will never do it! C) too many people rely on AIPAC money for senate/house election races… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember when Spain tried this and then found out their defenses were totally dependent on Israeli tech. 🤣 Jewish people are 0.2% of the global population and have won 220 Nobel Prizes, 20% of the total. But knock yourself out OP, good luck with all those amazing Iranian inventions. 🤣🤣🤣 The above sounds a bit racist to me. Lording the achievements of one race in order to make other races appear inferior? How does it feel to be on the side of dwindling public opinion? Pro-Israelis are a minority in both the UK & US at the moment you know. I only care about being on the right side, which I am. "The right side .. we're you involved in the "war" ? Theres me thinking you were sat in a string vest on an armchair spouting rubbish. What side were you on as a matter of interest ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No. The West should be eternally grateful to Israel for doing its dirty work while the West (US excepted) just slobs around on benefits doing nothing. Instead of flabbing around on the sofa examining its navel about Israel, countries like Britain need to urgently assess the lessons of the past month: Why does the UK have no military worth speaking of and what does it intend to do about it? Even if the UK government wanted to get involved in this crisis it couldn’t have done anything. Starmer and the EU have played zero part in this crisis: the Europeans have just become whining bystanders on the global stage with nothing useful to offer. What does the UK intend to do about its catastrophic energy policies. Maybe Britain should try putting its own house in order first. " The West should be grateful to Israel for doing its ‘dirty work’ ? The West created the problem as far as I see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember when Spain tried this and then found out their defenses were totally dependent on Israeli tech. 🤣 Jewish people are 0.2% of the global population and have won 220 Nobel Prizes, 20% of the total. But knock yourself out OP, good luck with all those amazing Iranian inventions. 🤣🤣🤣 Iranian inventions what sort of slabbering is that ?" What he's trying to say is that dispite his claims of trump wading in to avenge the 50000 dead Iranians and prevent more massacres is that the US was being controlled by 0.2% of the population to commit genocide and rid the world of those pesky Iranian bastards. The 0.2% still aren't happy and the Hormuz straits remains closed so the mango has to tell the other 98% of his voters that the price of gas isn't coming down anytime soon so suck it up and get circumsised | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember when Spain tried this and then found out their defenses were totally dependent on Israeli tech. 🤣 Jewish people are 0.2% of the global population and have won 220 Nobel Prizes, 20% of the total. But knock yourself out OP, good luck with all those amazing Iranian inventions. 🤣🤣🤣 Iranian inventions what sort of slabbering is that ? What he's trying to say is that dispite his claims of trump wading in to avenge the 50000 dead Iranians and prevent more massacres is that the US was being controlled by 0.2% of the population to commit genocide and rid the world of those pesky Iranian bastards. The 0.2% still aren't happy and the Hormuz straits remains closed so the mango has to tell the other 98% of his voters that the price of gas isn't coming down anytime soon so suck it up and get circumsised " Sincere apologies The other 99.8% can get fucked not 98% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No why would they " Because they are a land grabbing, ceasefire ignoring, stealth settling rogue state? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember when Spain tried this and then found out their defenses were totally dependent on Israeli tech. 🤣 Jewish people are 0.2% of the global population and have won 220 Nobel Prizes, 20% of the total. But knock yourself out OP, good luck with all those amazing Iranian inventions. 🤣🤣🤣 The above sounds a bit racist to me. Lording the achievements of one race in order to make other races appear inferior? How does it feel to be on the side of dwindling public opinion? Pro-Israelis are a minority in both the UK & US at the moment you know. I only care about being on the right side, which I am.
The right side .. we're you involved in the "war" ?
Theres me thinking you were sat in a string vest on an armchair spouting rubbish.
What side were you on as a matter of interest ?
"Ah personal abuse, the default position for those who have lost every argument and got every prediction wrong on this issue. What side am I on ? The one against anti semitism and conspiracy theories. Always will be.💪 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember when Spain tried this and then found out their defenses were totally dependent on Israeli tech. 🤣 Jewish people are 0.2% of the global population and have won 220 Nobel Prizes, 20% of the total. But knock yourself out OP, good luck with all those amazing Iranian inventions. 🤣🤣🤣 Iranian inventions what sort of slabbering is that ? What he's trying to say is that dispite his claims of trump wading in to avenge the 50000 dead Iranians and prevent more massacres is that the US was being controlled by 0.2% of the population to commit genocide and rid the world of those pesky Iranian bastards. The 0.2% still aren't happy and the Hormuz straits remains closed so the mango has to tell the other 98% of his voters that the price of gas isn't coming down anytime soon so suck it up and get circumsised " Careful now, your true opinions are showing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No why would they Because they are a land grabbing, ceasefire ignoring, stealth settling rogue state?" that could be your opinion I think others would disagree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No why would they Because they are a land grabbing, ceasefire ignoring, stealth settling rogue state? that could be your opinion I think others would disagree " Pro Israeli public opinion is currently sinking in the US & UK. I’m happy to be hoisted on my opinion. Seems it’s an increasingly popular one | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No why would they Because they are a land grabbing, ceasefire ignoring, stealth settling rogue state? that could be your opinion I think others would disagree Pro Israeli public opinion is currently sinking in the US & UK. I’m happy to be hoisted on my opinion. Seems it’s an increasingly popular one "is it or is it just that most people don't say.I don't no anyone I see regular that has said that there support for Israel and us has changed my opinion certainly hasn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pro Israeli public opinion is currently sinking in the US & UK." Is it? Or is it just that the pro-Israel crowd are less likely to say so nowadays? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pro Israeli public opinion is currently sinking in the US & UK. Is it? Or is it just that the pro-Israel crowd are less likely to say so nowadays?" Why would they be less inclined to do so all of a sudden do you think? Support was higher when Hamas did their thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pro Israeli public opinion is currently sinking in the US & UK." "Is it? Or is it just that the pro-Israel crowd are less likely to say so nowadays?" "Why would they be less inclined to do so all of a sudden do you think?" I imagine the levels of violence and invective from those against Israel would put off pro-Israel people from bringing the subject up. The "shy Tory" effect. I'd like to see some actual poll results so that it can be determined whether the anti-Israel side has increased in numbers, or just percentages. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pro Israeli public opinion is currently sinking in the US & UK. Is it? Or is it just that the pro-Israel crowd are less likely to say so nowadays? Why would they be less inclined to do so all of a sudden do you think? I imagine the levels of violence and invective from those against Israel would put off pro-Israel people from bringing the subject up. The "shy Tory" effect. I'd like to see some actual poll results so that it can be determined whether the anti-Israel side has increased in numbers, or just percentages." More In Common, UK: In the two years since October 2023-25, The number saying they sympathise more with Israel has fallen slightly from 16 to 14 per cent, and the proportion saying they sympathise more with Palestine has risen slightly from 18 to 26 per cent. IPSOS, UK Sept 2025: Military operations: Half (53%) of Britons think Israel's military actions in Gaza have gone too far. 9% about right, 8% not far enough. “Public support for Israel in western Europe at lowest ever recorded by YouGov” (June 2025) The survey found net favourability towards Israel in Germany (-44), France (-48) and Denmark (-54) was the lowest since polling on the question began in 2016, while in Italy (-52) and Spain (-55) it was also at its lowest or joint lowest, albeit from 2021. In the UK, net favourability was at -46, a fraction higher than its low of -49 late last year. Overall, only between 13% and 21% of respondents in any country polled had a favourable view of Israel, compared with 63%-70% whose views were unfavourable. USA, Pew Research Center, April 2026: “Negative views of Israel, Netanyahu continue to rise among Americans – especially young people” 60% of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% last year. 59% have little or no confidence in Netanyahu to do the right thing regarding world affairs – up from 52% last year. In both political parties, majorities of adults under the age of 50 now rate Israel and Netanyahu negatively. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well ?" genuine question... Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pro Israeli public opinion is currently sinking in the US & UK. Is it? Or is it just that the pro-Israel crowd are less likely to say so nowadays? Why would they be less inclined to do so all of a sudden do you think? I imagine the levels of violence and invective from those against Israel would put off pro-Israel people from bringing the subject up. The "shy Tory" effect. I'd like to see some actual poll results so that it can be determined whether the anti-Israel side has increased in numbers, or just percentages. More In Common, UK: In the two years since October 2023-25, The number saying they sympathise more with Israel has fallen slightly from 16 to 14 per cent, and the proportion saying they sympathise more with Palestine has risen slightly from 18 to 26 per cent. IPSOS, UK Sept 2025: Military operations: Half (53%) of Britons think Israel's military actions in Gaza have gone too far. 9% about right, 8% not far enough. “Public support for Israel in western Europe at lowest ever recorded by YouGov” (June 2025) The survey found net favourability towards Israel in Germany (-44), France (-48) and Denmark (-54) was the lowest since polling on the question began in 2016, while in Italy (-52) and Spain (-55) it was also at its lowest or joint lowest, albeit from 2021. In the UK, net favourability was at -46, a fraction higher than its low of -49 late last year. Overall, only between 13% and 21% of respondents in any country polled had a favourable view of Israel, compared with 63%-70% whose views were unfavourable. USA, Pew Research Center, April 2026: “Negative views of Israel, Netanyahu continue to rise among Americans – especially young people” 60% of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% last year. 59% have little or no confidence in Netanyahu to do the right thing regarding world affairs – up from 52% last year. In both political parties, majorities of adults under the age of 50 now rate Israel and Netanyahu negatively. " I think I’d want to do a deeper dive on the numbers: We know that anti semitism is on the rise. What’s causing it? I’m sure that younger people are more negative about Israel. To what extent is that being caused by social contagion in educational institutions/peer groups Given the rapid demographic changes in the West we would need to cross reference increased hostility to Israel with the nature of growing immigrant “communities” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like to see some actual poll results so that it can be determined whether the anti-Israel side has increased in numbers, or just percentages." "More In Common, UK: In the two years since October 2023-25, The number saying they sympathise more with Israel has fallen slightly from 16 to 14 per cent, and the proportion saying they sympathise more with Palestine has risen slightly from 18 to 26 per cent. IPSOS, UK Sept 2025: Military operations: Half (53%) of Britons think Israel's military actions in Gaza have gone too far. 9% about right, 8% not far enough. “Public support for Israel in western Europe at lowest ever recorded by YouGov” (June 2025) The survey found net favourability towards Israel in Germany (-44), France (-48) and Denmark (-54) was the lowest since polling on the question began in 2016, while in Italy (-52) and Spain (-55) it was also at its lowest or joint lowest, albeit from 2021. In the UK, net favourability was at -46, a fraction higher than its low of -49 late last year. Overall, only between 13% and 21% of respondents in any country polled had a favourable view of Israel, compared with 63%-70% whose views were unfavourable. USA, Pew Research Center, April 2026: “Negative views of Israel, Netanyahu continue to rise among Americans – especially young people” 60% of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% last year. 59% have little or no confidence in Netanyahu to do the right thing regarding world affairs – up from 52% last year. In both political parties, majorities of adults under the age of 50 now rate Israel and Netanyahu negatively." Thanks for the info, but those just show percentages so it's not possible to tell whether anti is rising or pro is falling (or both). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pro Israeli public opinion is currently sinking in the US & UK. Is it? Or is it just that the pro-Israel crowd are less likely to say so nowadays? Why would they be less inclined to do so all of a sudden do you think? I imagine the levels of violence and invective from those against Israel would put off pro-Israel people from bringing the subject up. The "shy Tory" effect. I'd like to see some actual poll results so that it can be determined whether the anti-Israel side has increased in numbers, or just percentages. More In Common, UK: In the two years since October 2023-25, The number saying they sympathise more with Israel has fallen slightly from 16 to 14 per cent, and the proportion saying they sympathise more with Palestine has risen slightly from 18 to 26 per cent. IPSOS, UK Sept 2025: Military operations: Half (53%) of Britons think Israel's military actions in Gaza have gone too far. 9% about right, 8% not far enough. “Public support for Israel in western Europe at lowest ever recorded by YouGov” (June 2025) The survey found net favourability towards Israel in Germany (-44), France (-48) and Denmark (-54) was the lowest since polling on the question began in 2016, while in Italy (-52) and Spain (-55) it was also at its lowest or joint lowest, albeit from 2021. In the UK, net favourability was at -46, a fraction higher than its low of -49 late last year. Overall, only between 13% and 21% of respondents in any country polled had a favourable view of Israel, compared with 63%-70% whose views were unfavourable. USA, Pew Research Center, April 2026: “Negative views of Israel, Netanyahu continue to rise among Americans – especially young people” 60% of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% last year. 59% have little or no confidence in Netanyahu to do the right thing regarding world affairs – up from 52% last year. In both political parties, majorities of adults under the age of 50 now rate Israel and Netanyahu negatively. I think I’d want to do a deeper dive on the numbers: We know that anti semitism is on the rise. What’s causing it? I’m sure that younger people are more negative about Israel. To what extent is that being caused by social contagion in educational institutions/peer groups Given the rapid demographic changes in the West we would need to cross reference increased hostility to Israel with the nature of growing immigrant “communities”" Last survey I saw almost 40% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable view of the Iranian regime, and this was after the massacres. I'm sure the change in attitudes towards Israel is mostly due to demographic changes win alhich are making Britain an increasingly dangerous place for Jews. A cause for concern rather than celebration I'd say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well ?" No, quite the opposite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pro Israeli public opinion is currently sinking in the US & UK. Is it? Or is it just that the pro-Israel crowd are less likely to say so nowadays? Why would they be less inclined to do so all of a sudden do you think? I imagine the levels of violence and invective from those against Israel would put off pro-Israel people from bringing the subject up. The "shy Tory" effect. I'd like to see some actual poll results so that it can be determined whether the anti-Israel side has increased in numbers, or just percentages. More In Common, UK: In the two years since October 2023-25, The number saying they sympathise more with Israel has fallen slightly from 16 to 14 per cent, and the proportion saying they sympathise more with Palestine has risen slightly from 18 to 26 per cent. IPSOS, UK Sept 2025: Military operations: Half (53%) of Britons think Israel's military actions in Gaza have gone too far. 9% about right, 8% not far enough. “Public support for Israel in western Europe at lowest ever recorded by YouGov” (June 2025) The survey found net favourability towards Israel in Germany (-44), France (-48) and Denmark (-54) was the lowest since polling on the question began in 2016, while in Italy (-52) and Spain (-55) it was also at its lowest or joint lowest, albeit from 2021. In the UK, net favourability was at -46, a fraction higher than its low of -49 late last year. Overall, only between 13% and 21% of respondents in any country polled had a favourable view of Israel, compared with 63%-70% whose views were unfavourable. USA, Pew Research Center, April 2026: “Negative views of Israel, Netanyahu continue to rise among Americans – especially young people” 60% of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% last year. 59% have little or no confidence in Netanyahu to do the right thing regarding world affairs – up from 52% last year. In both political parties, majorities of adults under the age of 50 now rate Israel and Netanyahu negatively. I think I’d want to do a deeper dive on the numbers: We know that anti semitism is on the rise. What’s causing it? I’m sure that younger people are more negative about Israel. To what extent is that being caused by social contagion in educational institutions/peer groups Given the rapid demographic changes in the West we would need to cross reference increased hostility to Israel with the nature of growing immigrant “communities” Last survey I saw almost 40% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable view of the Iranian regime, and this was after the massacres. I'm sure the change in attitudes towards Israel is mostly due to demographic changes win alhich are making Britain an increasingly dangerous place for Jews. A cause for concern rather than celebration I'd say." Or on the bright side the majority of Iranian people living in the UK oppose the current Iranian regime in contrast to Donny who did a deal with them ... The one that was supposed to save them threw them to the wolves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pro Israeli public opinion is currently sinking in the US & UK. Is it? Or is it just that the pro-Israel crowd are less likely to say so nowadays? Why would they be less inclined to do so all of a sudden do you think? I imagine the levels of violence and invective from those against Israel would put off pro-Israel people from bringing the subject up. The "shy Tory" effect. I'd like to see some actual poll results so that it can be determined whether the anti-Israel side has increased in numbers, or just percentages. More In Common, UK: In the two years since October 2023-25, The number saying they sympathise more with Israel has fallen slightly from 16 to 14 per cent, and the proportion saying they sympathise more with Palestine has risen slightly from 18 to 26 per cent. IPSOS, UK Sept 2025: Military operations: Half (53%) of Britons think Israel's military actions in Gaza have gone too far. 9% about right, 8% not far enough. “Public support for Israel in western Europe at lowest ever recorded by YouGov” (June 2025) The survey found net favourability towards Israel in Germany (-44), France (-48) and Denmark (-54) was the lowest since polling on the question began in 2016, while in Italy (-52) and Spain (-55) it was also at its lowest or joint lowest, albeit from 2021. In the UK, net favourability was at -46, a fraction higher than its low of -49 late last year. Overall, only between 13% and 21% of respondents in any country polled had a favourable view of Israel, compared with 63%-70% whose views were unfavourable. USA, Pew Research Center, April 2026: “Negative views of Israel, Netanyahu continue to rise among Americans – especially young people” 60% of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% last year. 59% have little or no confidence in Netanyahu to do the right thing regarding world affairs – up from 52% last year. In both political parties, majorities of adults under the age of 50 now rate Israel and Netanyahu negatively. I think I’d want to do a deeper dive on the numbers: We know that anti semitism is on the rise. What’s causing it? I’m sure that younger people are more negative about Israel. To what extent is that being caused by social contagion in educational institutions/peer groups Given the rapid demographic changes in the West we would need to cross reference increased hostility to Israel with the nature of growing immigrant “communities” Last survey I saw almost 40% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable view of the Iranian regime, and this was after the massacres. I'm sure the change in attitudes towards Israel is mostly due to demographic changes win alhich are making Britain an increasingly dangerous place for Jews. A cause for concern rather than celebration I'd say. Or on the bright side the majority of Iranian people living in the UK oppose the current Iranian regime in contrast to Donny who did a deal with them ... The one that was supposed to save them threw them to the wolves. " I thought you would be happy u have been cheering them on since this started | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"... the price of gas isn't coming down anytime soon so suck it up and get circumsised " They should become Muslims? 
Is that what it takes to get cheap gas nowadays? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pro Israeli public opinion is currently sinking in the US & UK. Is it? Or is it just that the pro-Israel crowd are less likely to say so nowadays? Why would they be less inclined to do so all of a sudden do you think? I imagine the levels of violence and invective from those against Israel would put off pro-Israel people from bringing the subject up. The "shy Tory" effect. I'd like to see some actual poll results so that it can be determined whether the anti-Israel side has increased in numbers, or just percentages. More In Common, UK: In the two years since October 2023-25, The number saying they sympathise more with Israel has fallen slightly from 16 to 14 per cent, and the proportion saying they sympathise more with Palestine has risen slightly from 18 to 26 per cent. IPSOS, UK Sept 2025: Military operations: Half (53%) of Britons think Israel's military actions in Gaza have gone too far. 9% about right, 8% not far enough. “Public support for Israel in western Europe at lowest ever recorded by YouGov” (June 2025) The survey found net favourability towards Israel in Germany (-44), France (-48) and Denmark (-54) was the lowest since polling on the question began in 2016, while in Italy (-52) and Spain (-55) it was also at its lowest or joint lowest, albeit from 2021. In the UK, net favourability was at -46, a fraction higher than its low of -49 late last year. Overall, only between 13% and 21% of respondents in any country polled had a favourable view of Israel, compared with 63%-70% whose views were unfavourable. USA, Pew Research Center, April 2026: “Negative views of Israel, Netanyahu continue to rise among Americans – especially young people” 60% of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 53% last year. 59% have little or no confidence in Netanyahu to do the right thing regarding world affairs – up from 52% last year. In both political parties, majorities of adults under the age of 50 now rate Israel and Netanyahu negatively. I think I’d want to do a deeper dive on the numbers: We know that anti semitism is on the rise. What’s causing it? I’m sure that younger people are more negative about Israel. To what extent is that being caused by social contagion in educational institutions/peer groups Given the rapid demographic changes in the West we would need to cross reference increased hostility to Israel with the nature of growing immigrant “communities” Last survey I saw almost 40% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable view of the Iranian regime, and this was after the massacres. I'm sure the change in attitudes towards Israel is mostly due to demographic changes win alhich are making Britain an increasingly dangerous place for Jews. A cause for concern rather than celebration I'd say. Or on the bright side the majority of Iranian people living in the UK oppose the current Iranian regime in contrast to Donny who did a deal with them ... The one that was supposed to save them threw them to the wolves. I thought you would be happy u have been cheering them on since this started" Diataste for the orange fuck doesn't equal support for rag heads ... Do keep up | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Question: Should the US place sanctions on Israel Well ?" You'd need to explain why, then look at those reasons, ask which apply to other countries (now and in living memory) and ask whether the US should also sanction those countries... As we as balance that against the relationship/strength of alliances, potential benefits to the US and internal political sentiment. You'll then struggle to make a case, taking all of those factors into account. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US / Israel love story seems to be coming to and end. 41% of Americans now side with the Palestinian cause whilst only 36% side with Israel (Gallup). Even MAGA is starting to see that Butcher Bibi plays Fat Donnie like a fiddle." 41% side with the Palestine cause? You haven't represented the outcome fairly... The question asked: In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israelis or Palestinians? Like most polls, squint enough and they provide the answer to the opinion you have.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US / Israel love story seems to be coming to and end. 41% of Americans now side with the Palestinian cause whilst only 36% side with Israel (Gallup). Even MAGA is starting to see that Butcher Bibi plays Fat Donnie like a fiddle. 41% side with the Palestine cause? You haven't represented the outcome fairly... The question asked: In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israelis or Palestinians? Like most polls, squint enough and they provide the answer to the opinion you have.. " Sounds like semantics but whatever 🙄. The most interesting shift has been amongst Republicans, who have massively changed their collective stance on Israel. Now considering how keen they are on slashing US funding for foreign projects, could Israel lose its annual $3.8 billion birthday present from the US taxpayer? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US / Israel love story seems to be coming to and end. 41% of Americans now side with the Palestinian cause whilst only 36% side with Israel (Gallup). Even MAGA is starting to see that Butcher Bibi plays Fat Donnie like a fiddle. 41% side with the Palestine cause? You haven't represented the outcome fairly... The question asked: In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israelis or Palestinians? Like most polls, squint enough and they provide the answer to the opinion you have.. Sounds like semantics but whatever 🙄. The most interesting shift has been amongst Republicans, who have massively changed their collective stance on Israel. Now considering how keen they are on slashing US funding for foreign projects, could Israel lose its annual $3.8 billion birthday present from the US taxpayer?" I agree it is semantics, which was my point. Opinion today will be based on impact on time passed, the economy, or the media feeds that a person has been consuming and rarely about the actual issues that started the conflict. Ukraine is a perfect example of this. Iran, US and Israel will be long forgotten by the end of Q2. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US / Israel love story seems to be coming to and end. 41% of Americans now side with the Palestinian cause whilst only 36% side with Israel (Gallup). Even MAGA is starting to see that Butcher Bibi plays Fat Donnie like a fiddle. 41% side with the Palestine cause? You haven't represented the outcome fairly... The question asked: In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israelis or Palestinians? Like most polls, squint enough and they provide the answer to the opinion you have.. Sounds like semantics but whatever 🙄. The most interesting shift has been amongst Republicans, who have massively changed their collective stance on Israel. Now considering how keen they are on slashing US funding for foreign projects, could Israel lose its annual $3.8 billion birthday present from the US taxpayer? I agree it is semantics, which was my point. Opinion today will be based on impact on time passed, the economy, or the media feeds that a person has been consuming and rarely about the actual issues that started the conflict. Ukraine is a perfect example of this. Iran, US and Israel will be long forgotten by the end of Q2." ...which is so vague it's almost unfalsifiable. Was that your intention? If you wanted to appear thoughtful whilst avoiding the subject, then you get 10/10 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I suppose that if you take it all to a basic level, how would you react if countries in the area openly admitted to wanting to wipe you off the face of the earth. I think you would strike first and then keep striking until you feel safe. How would you feel living under that pressure?" I wouldn’t have set the State of Israel up there in the first place. T’was a stupid idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US / Israel love story seems to be coming to and end. 41% of Americans now side with the Palestinian cause whilst only 36% side with Israel (Gallup). Even MAGA is starting to see that Butcher Bibi plays Fat Donnie like a fiddle. 41% side with the Palestine cause? You haven't represented the outcome fairly... The question asked: In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israelis or Palestinians? Like most polls, squint enough and they provide the answer to the opinion you have.. Sounds like semantics but whatever 🙄. The most interesting shift has been amongst Republicans, who have massively changed their collective stance on Israel. Now considering how keen they are on slashing US funding for foreign projects, could Israel lose its annual $3.8 billion birthday present from the US taxpayer? I agree it is semantics, which was my point. Opinion today will be based on impact on time passed, the economy, or the media feeds that a person has been consuming and rarely about the actual issues that started the conflict. Ukraine is a perfect example of this. Iran, US and Israel will be long forgotten by the end of Q2. ...which is so vague it's almost unfalsifiable. Was that your intention? If you wanted to appear thoughtful whilst avoiding the subject, then you get 10/10" Showing more sympathy towards one or the other is not the same siding towards their cause. That is a picture you have presented and I guess it serves a bias. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US / Israel love story seems to be coming to and end. 41% of Americans now side with the Palestinian cause whilst only 36% side with Israel (Gallup). Even MAGA is starting to see that Butcher Bibi plays Fat Donnie like a fiddle. 41% side with the Palestine cause? You haven't represented the outcome fairly... The question asked: In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israelis or Palestinians? Like most polls, squint enough and they provide the answer to the opinion you have.. Sounds like semantics but whatever 🙄. The most interesting shift has been amongst Republicans, who have massively changed their collective stance on Israel. Now considering how keen they are on slashing US funding for foreign projects, could Israel lose its annual $3.8 billion birthday present from the US taxpayer? I agree it is semantics, which was my point. Opinion today will be based on impact on time passed, the economy, or the media feeds that a person has been consuming and rarely about the actual issues that started the conflict. Ukraine is a perfect example of this. Iran, US and Israel will be long forgotten by the end of Q2. ...which is so vague it's almost unfalsifiable. Was that your intention? If you wanted to appear thoughtful whilst avoiding the subject, then you get 10/10 Showing more sympathy towards one or the other is not the same siding towards their cause. That is a picture you have presented and I guess it serves a bias." Looks to me like you are splitting hairs. That Gallup poll isn’t the only one out there either. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US / Israel love story seems to be coming to and end. 41% of Americans now side with the Palestinian cause whilst only 36% side with Israel (Gallup). Even MAGA is starting to see that Butcher Bibi plays Fat Donnie like a fiddle. 41% side with the Palestine cause? You haven't represented the outcome fairly... The question asked: In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israelis or Palestinians? Like most polls, squint enough and they provide the answer to the opinion you have.. Sounds like semantics but whatever 🙄. The most interesting shift has been amongst Republicans, who have massively changed their collective stance on Israel. Now considering how keen they are on slashing US funding for foreign projects, could Israel lose its annual $3.8 billion birthday present from the US taxpayer? I agree it is semantics, which was my point. Opinion today will be based on impact on time passed, the economy, or the media feeds that a person has been consuming and rarely about the actual issues that started the conflict. Ukraine is a perfect example of this. Iran, US and Israel will be long forgotten by the end of Q2. ...which is so vague it's almost unfalsifiable. Was that your intention? If you wanted to appear thoughtful whilst avoiding the subject, then you get 10/10 Showing more sympathy towards one or the other is not the same siding towards their cause. That is a picture you have presented and I guess it serves a bias. Looks to me like you are splitting hairs. That Gallup poll isn’t the only one out there either." It's the one being quoted and being factual is not splitting hairs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US / Israel love story seems to be coming to and end. 41% of Americans now side with the Palestinian cause whilst only 36% side with Israel (Gallup). Even MAGA is starting to see that Butcher Bibi plays Fat Donnie like a fiddle." It is absolutely false to say those polled 'side with the Palestinian cause' which is not what the poll asked at all. I wish Fab had community notes like X then we could highlight these type of posts! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The question asked: In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israelis or Palestinians?" By using the keyword "sympathy", many would answer the question: "who is suffering the most", or "who is on most need of sympathy". It's not necessarily being answered as "on whose side are you?" You might get a different impression if the question asked was... Do you agree with the Pakistani defense minister, who said: Israel is evil and a curse for humanity, while peace talks are underway in Islamabad, genocide is being committed in Lebanon. Innocent citizens are being killed by Israel, first Gaza, then Iran and now Lebanon, bloodletting continues unabated. I hope and pray people who created this cancerous state on Palestinian land to get rid of European jews burn in hell. (The guy facilitating negotiations with Iran) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Gallup poll, seeing as it’s being put under the spotlight over the specific question ‘who sympathises with who’ shows a drop in Israeli ‘sympathy’ from 46% to 36% & a rise in Palestinian ‘sympathy’ from 33% to 41% over the previous year. The direction of travel is only one way here - that’s indisputable. " So opinions never change then and only go in one direction ? That is certainly an interesting take. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to a new Pew poll, 60% of all Americans now have a negative opinion of Israel, up from 42% in 2022. In the 14-49 age group, a whopping 57% of Republicans hold that negative view. Oops" No no you’ve got it all wrong. Netanyahu & Israel are incredibly popular & getting even more so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to a new Pew poll, 60% of all Americans now have a negative opinion of Israel, up from 42% in 2022. In the 14-49 age group, a whopping 57% of Republicans hold that negative view. Oops No no you’ve got it all wrong. Netanyahu & Israel are incredibly popular & getting even more so. " And you get that data from where?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The question asked: In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israelis or Palestinians? By using the keyword "sympathy", many would answer the question: "who is suffering the most", or "who is on most need of sympathy". It's not necessarily being answered as "on whose side are you?" You might get a different impression if the question asked was... Do you agree with the Pakistani defense minister, who said: Israel is evil and a curse for humanity, while peace talks are underway in Islamabad, genocide is being committed in Lebanon. Innocent citizens are being killed by Israel, first Gaza, then Iran and now Lebanon, bloodletting continues unabated. I hope and pray people who created this cancerous state on Palestinian land to get rid of European jews burn in hell. (The guy facilitating negotiations with Iran)" What a load of crap. Why are you not mentioning that was after Israel decided to carry on bombing Lebanon after the ceasefire that the Pakistanis helped to broker?You know, for context? I don’t agree with him by the way, but see that as a petulant outburst in the face of what Pakistan see as ceasefire violations. The type of outburst that the likes of Ben Gvir or Smotrich may come out with on the Israeli side…or are the Israelis always the poor innocents in your eyes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to a new Pew poll, 60% of all Americans now have a negative opinion of Israel, up from 42% in 2022. In the 14-49 age group, a whopping 57% of Republicans hold that negative view. Oops No no you’ve got it all wrong. Netanyahu & Israel are incredibly popular & getting even more so. And you get that data from where??" My arse? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What a load of crap. " What is? " Why are you not mentioning that was after Israel decided to carry on bombing Lebanon after the ceasefire that the Pakistanis helped to broker?" Perhaps you missed the point of the post. " You know, for context? I don’t agree with him by the way, but see that as a petulant outburst in the face of what Pakistan see as ceasefire violations. " More like an unguarded comment that shows his true feelings when the diplomatic mask is off. " The type of outburst that the likes of Ben Gvir or Smotrich may come out with on the Israeli side…or are the Israelis always the poor innocents in your eyes?" Ben Gvir and Smotrich are evil idiots. Presumably your comparison was to call the Pakistani defense minister an evil idiot as well. The purpose of that quote was to show what people WOULD NOT agree with if it were put into a poll. You've answered that you don't agree with it. So, demonstrating the point that when you put a loaded question to people, they might respond in ways that do not necessarily show support for a "side". Now, someone might want to protest your rejection of support for his comments as support for Israel and against Pakistan. Again, to be clear, the post was demonstrating the issues with the language used in polling questions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What a load of crap. What is? Why are you not mentioning that was after Israel decided to carry on bombing Lebanon after the ceasefire that the Pakistanis helped to broker? Perhaps you missed the point of the post. You know, for context? I don’t agree with him by the way, but see that as a petulant outburst in the face of what Pakistan see as ceasefire violations. More like an unguarded comment that shows his true feelings when the diplomatic mask is off. The type of outburst that the likes of Ben Gvir or Smotrich may come out with on the Israeli side…or are the Israelis always the poor innocents in your eyes? Ben Gvir and Smotrich are evil idiots. Presumably your comparison was to call the Pakistani defense minister an evil idiot as well. The purpose of that quote was to show what people WOULD NOT agree with if it were put into a poll. You've answered that you don't agree with it. So, demonstrating the point that when you put a loaded question to people, they might respond in ways that do not necessarily show support for a "side". Now, someone might want to protest your rejection of support for his comments as support for Israel and against Pakistan. Again, to be clear, the post was demonstrating the issues with the language used in polling questions. " Why did you pick an example that only shows a comment highly critical of Israel & not couple it with a quote from the Israeli right wing then, thus giving two examples from both sides for balance? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why did you pick an example that only shows a comment highly critical of Israel & not couple it with a quote from the Israeli right wing then, thus giving two examples from both sides for balance?" What did you mean by "what a load of crap?", please? Why is balance needed in this instance? This was not a BBC news article, but a post to demonstrate that, with the right language, one might manipulate people to appear to take a pro-Israel position (as you could have been misconstrued to take by disagreeing with the Pakistani defense minister). It's about bias in the language of polls. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Why did you pick an example that only shows a comment highly critical of Israel & not couple it with a quote from the Israeli right wing then, thus giving two examples from both sides for balance? What did you mean by "what a load of crap?", please? Why is balance needed in this instance? This was not a BBC news article, but a post to demonstrate that, with the right language, one might manipulate people to appear to take a pro-Israel position (as you could have been misconstrued to take by disagreeing with the Pakistani defense minister). It's about bias in the language of polls." I thought it significant that you only gave one example from one side of the face & not two from both. Hence me calling out your post as crap. Biased crap in the face of polls which show sliding support for Israel across the western world. What in the Gallup question was manipulating people to take a pro Palestine position? ‘Sympathy’? It doesn’t really matter anyhow does it, numerous polls have been posted upthread, doesn’t seem to matter how the questions are phrased, public opinion regarding Israel is sliding. Maybe concentrate less on wording on polls & focus more on Israeli policy as to why that may be. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I thought it significant that you only gave one example from one side of the face & not two from both. Hence me calling out your post as crap. Biased crap in the face of polls which show sliding support for Israel across the western world." That probably made sense in your head. " It doesn’t really matter anyhow does it, numerous polls have been posted upthread, doesn’t seem to matter how the questions are phrased, public opinion regarding Israel is sliding." On the whole, that's indeed probable. " Maybe concentrate less on wording on polls & focus more on Israeli policy as to why that may be." Has their policy changed in the past 6-24 months? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I thought it significant that you only gave one example from one side of the face & not two from both. Hence me calling out your post as crap. Biased crap in the face of polls which show sliding support for Israel across the western world. That probably made sense in your head. It doesn’t really matter anyhow does it, numerous polls have been posted upthread, doesn’t seem to matter how the questions are phrased, public opinion regarding Israel is sliding. On the whole, that's indeed probable. Maybe concentrate less on wording on polls & focus more on Israeli policy as to why that may be. Has their policy changed in the past 6-24 months?" Personal attacks, nice. You are clearly biased, don’t be shy, if you ‘sympathise’ with the Israelis, just say so & don’t hide behind a wall of supposedly neutral bullshit. If you weren’t, you would have come up with loaded question examples from both sides of the coin. I’m biased, I ‘sympathise’ more with the Palestinian cause. The policy of this right wing Israeli administration has generally continued in the same vein I’d say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Personal attacks, nice. " Don't mistake a dismissive tone for a personal attack. The same way "what a load of crap" is a dismissive comment, not a personal attack. " You are clearly biased, don’t be shy, if you ‘sympathise’ with the Israelis, just say so & don’t hide behind a wall of supposedly neutral bullshit. If you weren’t, you would have come up with loaded question examples from both sides of the coin. " It isn't really a binary position though, is it? One can sympathise with both. One can even call Ben Gvir and Smotrich "evil idiots" and not hate the State of Israel. You seem to want to reduce it to a binary position. " I’m biased, I ‘sympathise’ more with the Palestinian cause. " Fantastic. " The policy of this right wing Israeli administration has generally continued in the same vein I’d say. " Yet you suggest that the change in sentiment is due to policy. It's clearly more than just policy if sentiment shifts but policy doesn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Personal attacks, nice. Don't mistake a dismissive tone for a personal attack. The same way "what a load of crap" is a dismissive comment, not a personal attack. You are clearly biased, don’t be shy, if you ‘sympathise’ with the Israelis, just say so & don’t hide behind a wall of supposedly neutral bullshit. If you weren’t, you would have come up with loaded question examples from both sides of the coin. It isn't really a binary position though, is it? One can sympathise with both. One can even call Ben Gvir and Smotrich "evil idiots" and not hate the State of Israel. You seem to want to reduce it to a binary position. I’m biased, I ‘sympathise’ more with the Palestinian cause. Fantastic. The policy of this right wing Israeli administration has generally continued in the same vein I’d say. Yet you suggest that the change in sentiment is due to policy. It's clearly more than just policy if sentiment shifts but policy doesn't." Criticising a post’s content as ‘a load of crap’ which was then further clarified as ‘biased crap’, really isn’t the same as casting aspertions on somebody’s individual mental capacity: ‘making sense in YOUR head’ is it? Where have I said the change in sentiment is due to policy? Have you considered more of the same over a prolonged period may be more unpalatable to many? You still haven’t answered why you only gave only one biased example of a loaded question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Where have I said the change in sentiment is due to policy? Have you considered more of the same over a prolonged period may be more unpalatable to many?" "Maybe concentrate less on wording on polls & focus more on Israeli policy as to why that may be." You invite the notion that Israeli policy, specifically, is responsible for the shift in poll outcomes, rather than the wording itself. However, the posts to which the original post was a response were specifically a discussion of the wording of the poll - why you've only woken up to the "semantics" argument on that post is a mystery. It's almost as if you posted a knee jerk reaction to seeing an uncomplimentary post coming from a Pakistani minister, challenged it (without the context of the thread), got challenged back and are now trying to justify it as reasonable. Why don't you just quit here, we can reset this beautiful newfound online dialogue and relationship, and be forum friends going forward? " You still haven’t answered why you only gave only one biased example of a loaded question." If you see the original post, you'll notice: "You might get a different impression if the question asked was... Do you agree with the Pakistani defense minister, who said..." So the post was suggesting an alternative answer to a poll (i.e. seeming support for Israel) should a question from a DIFFERENT direction have been asked. Specifically that people express sympathy for, or sentiment against the aggressor, should another group be attacked - verbally or physically. Support rose for Israel briefly after October 7th (as victims), then rose for Palestinians after Israel pounded Gaza (as victims), and you expressed rejection of the Pakistani defense minister's statement after he attacked Israel online (this demonstrating the point). So, to answer your question again, hopefully unambiguously, only one side was (needed to be) given to demonstrate a different outcome from an opposing side to the original. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Where have I said the change in sentiment is due to policy? Have you considered more of the same over a prolonged period may be more unpalatable to many? "Maybe concentrate less on wording on polls & focus more on Israeli policy as to why that may be." You invite the notion that Israeli policy, specifically, is responsible for the shift in poll outcomes, rather than the wording itself. However, the posts to which the original post was a response were specifically a discussion of the wording of the poll - why you've only woken up to the "semantics" argument on that post is a mystery. It's almost as if you posted a knee jerk reaction to seeing an uncomplimentary post coming from a Pakistani minister, challenged it (without the context of the thread), got challenged back and are now trying to justify it as reasonable. Why don't you just quit here, we can reset this beautiful newfound online dialogue and relationship, and be forum friends going forward? You still haven’t answered why you only gave only one biased example of a loaded question. If you see the original post, you'll notice: "You might get a different impression if the question asked was... Do you agree with the Pakistani defense minister, who said..." So the post was suggesting an alternative answer to a poll (i.e. seeming support for Israel) should a question from a DIFFERENT direction have been asked. Specifically that people express sympathy for, or sentiment against the aggressor, should another group be attacked - verbally or physically. Support rose for Israel briefly after October 7th (as victims), then rose for Palestinians after Israel pounded Gaza (as victims), and you expressed rejection of the Pakistani defense minister's statement after he attacked Israel online (this demonstrating the point). So, to answer your question again, hopefully unambiguously, only one side was (needed to be) given to demonstrate a different outcome from an opposing side to the original." ‘I invite the notion’? To coin a phrase ‘in your head’ I may do, certainly not in mine. Israel’s policy can remain relatively constant without significant changes in direction & that in itself can affect public opinion. Though it makes sense you see me as ‘inviting a notion’ because of the prism you are viewing things through. You asked me ‘Has their policy changed in the past 6-24 months?’ I replied ‘The policy of this right wing Israeli administration has generally continued in the same vein I’d say’. That completely backs up what I’m saying. Nonetheless you came to the conclusion ‘It's clearly more than just policy if sentiment shifts but policy doesn't’ ? As regards the rest of your post, it just shows your bias. Are you trying to turn the tide of public opinion on here by picking an example of a frustrated Pakistani defence minister to Israeli non compliance with a ceasefire they have just negotiated to show the Muslim side in a worse light as possible? I’m certainly not condoning his remarks by the way, they are completely over the top. I totally understand the frustration though. But Pakistan haven’t attacked Israel have they, they aren’t an ‘aggressor’ in this conflict, so it’s a poor example to use, unless you are going to quote Ben Gvir in question for balance etc. It seems like biased opportunism to me to pick one example of a poor comment from one side to make a point about loaded poll questioning when the other side are arguably just as guilty. It’s like you have a pro-Israeli agenda or something….? If that’s the case - quit the bull & just say it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It’s like you have a pro-Israeli agenda or something….? If that’s the case - quit the bull & just say it. " You really want to reduce this to a tribal "pro Israel Vs pro Palestine" scenario. What does "pro-Israeli agenda" mean, in your view? What if one dislikes Smotrich & Ben Gvir, believes that both militant settlers who kill Palestinians AND Palestinians who kill Jews should be executed, that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, but that Palestinians have a right to live without fear of death or discrimination, and that Trump is a moron? Is that pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian? That's not even a full picture, but what's your definition of "pro-Israeli"? And (one you define it), what makes that definition the definitive and correct one? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It’s like you have a pro-Israeli agenda or something….? If that’s the case - quit the bull & just say it. You really want to reduce this to a tribal "pro Israel Vs pro Palestine" scenario. What does "pro-Israeli agenda" mean, in your view? What if one dislikes Smotrich & Ben Gvir, believes that both militant settlers who kill Palestinians AND Palestinians who kill Jews should be executed, that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, but that Palestinians have a right to live without fear of death or discrimination, and that Trump is a moron? Is that pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian? That's not even a full picture, but what's your definition of "pro-Israeli"? And (one you define it), what makes that definition the definitive and correct one?" I don’t know about definitive definitions, people’s definitions will vary but my own is pretty clear cut and mainly revolves around one point: The right to exist. I don’t believe Israel does have a right to exist. ‘But that’s AnTiSeMiTiC’. No it’s not, that’s bollox. You can disagree with this 80 year old state’s right to exist & question the whole idea of it without wishing another holocaust on Jews. It has been a massively flawed project. Born out of a flawed UN resolution. Displacement of Palestinians. No rights of return for the Palestinian dispora. Two tier rights / system of oppression and domination Etc etc etc If we are talking about definitions, my own personal view is: If you assert Israel’s right to exist, you are pro-Israeli. If you question Israel’s right to exist, you are pro-Palestinian. Only my definition of course, others will vary. Have a nice day | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It’s like you have a pro-Israeli agenda or something….? If that’s the case - quit the bull & just say it. You really want to reduce this to a tribal "pro Israel Vs pro Palestine" scenario. What does "pro-Israeli agenda" mean, in your view? What if one dislikes Smotrich & Ben Gvir, believes that both militant settlers who kill Palestinians AND Palestinians who kill Jews should be executed, that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, but that Palestinians have a right to live without fear of death or discrimination, and that Trump is a moron? Is that pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian? That's not even a full picture, but what's your definition of "pro-Israeli"? And (one you define it), what makes that definition the definitive and correct one? I don’t know about definitive definitions, people’s definitions will vary but my own is pretty clear cut and mainly revolves around one point: The right to exist. I don’t believe Israel does have a right to exist. ‘But that’s AnTiSeMiTiC’. No it’s not, that’s bollox. You can disagree with this 80 year old state’s right to exist & question the whole idea of it without wishing another holocaust on Jews. It has been a massively flawed project. Born out of a flawed UN resolution. Displacement of Palestinians. No rights of return for the Palestinian dispora. Two tier rights / system of oppression and domination Etc etc etc If we are talking about definitions, my own personal view is: If you assert Israel’s right to exist, you are pro-Israeli. If you question Israel’s right to exist, you are pro-Palestinian. Only my definition of course, others will vary. Have a nice day "And if you query trump you're pro Iranian militant regime somehow 🤷♂️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Have a nice day "You, too. Enjoy debating your straw man! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No. The West should be eternally grateful to Israel for doing its dirty work while the West (US excepted) just slobs around on benefits doing nothing. Instead of flabbing around on the sofa examining its navel about Israel, countries like Britain need to urgently assess the lessons of the past month: Why does the UK have no military worth speaking of and what does it intend to do about it? Even if the UK government wanted to get involved in this crisis it couldn’t have done anything. Starmer and the EU have played zero part in this crisis: the Europeans have just become whining bystanders on the global stage with nothing useful to offer. What does the UK intend to do about its catastrophic energy policies. Maybe Britain should try putting its own house in order first. The West should be grateful to Israel for doing its ‘dirty work’ ? The West created the problem as far as I see." I agree. Israel are the ones being bullied. It's like when you defend your home against a by a violent burglar then getting blamed for fighting back just because you have a bigger baseball bat. Even if you took Israel out of ymthe equation the middle east would still have infights. They don't want peace, they love power, guns, tanks, warships and missiles more than their own families. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I don’t believe Israel does have a right to exist. ‘But that’s AnTiSeMiTiC’. No it’s not, that’s bollox. You can disagree with this 80 year old state’s right to exist & question the whole idea of it without wishing another holocaust on Jews. Have a nice day " Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Here's why: The return to Zion has been a central theme for Jews since the Babylonian exile – it's part of the faith and the culture – because Israel is and always was the place where the Jewish ethnicity originated. In the late 19th century, the topic of returning to the Jewish homeland was forwarded as political Zionism – but it was an idea that many Jews were opposed to, like the Labour Bund who wanted better assimilation. History was not kind to The Bund (i.e. it was wiped out) So, history proved that Jews would never be safe without self-determination. Today it is not an idea to be debated, it is a lived reality and the home of almost half the world's Jews – that 7 million, with a slim majority having recent Middle Eastern heritage. So, when people today argue against the rights of Israel to exist, they are arguing for, at best, the loss of Jewish self-determination for 7 million Jews, and at worse, their displacement and destruction. If you think Israel should be dismantled, but are not as vocal about dismantling other nation states, then you are antisemitic. It may not be overt hatred, but it has the same consequences. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. " No. It depends on how one defines Zionism. If Zionism is defined as a genocidal, racist ideology to dominate Israel and the surrounding countries into a Jewish ethno-state that will eventually take over the world, then being Anti-Zionist is a reasonable position to take. If Zionism is defined as a longing of Jews to be returned to their ancestral homeland, as and when God decides to bring them there in messianic days (the position of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta), then it might just be purely antisemitic. The biggest issue is that people produce a straw-man version of Zionism against which they can pour out hate, not understanding that Zionism is a spectrum. In many circles, Zionist is a synonym for Jew. In others, it's seen as an extremist position. In most cases, the people using the term have no real understanding of its history, usage and meaning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Time for something new." Such as? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" No. It depends on how one defines Zionism. If Zionism is defined as a genocidal, racist ideology to dominate Israel and the surrounding countries into a Jewish ethno-state that will eventually take over the world, then being Anti-Zionist is a reasonable position to take. If Zionism is defined as a longing of Jews to be returned to their ancestral homeland, as and when God decides to bring them there in messianic days (the position of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta), then it might just be purely antisemitic. The biggest issue is that people produce a straw-man version of Zionism against which they can pour out hate, not understanding that Zionism is a spectrum. In many circles, Zionist is a synonym for Jew. In others, it's seen as an extremist position. In most cases, the people using the term have no real understanding of its history, usage and meaning." As defined in 1897 at the first Zionist congress: "Zionism strives to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law." So, that was the idea – and that idea became a reality. The arguments today are not against an idea, but against a functioning nation state, and the only Jewish majority country. Most political objections to the idea within Jewish thinking (e.g. Bundism) were wiped out by the Holocaust and Soviet Communism. In terms of religious thinking, Neturei Karta seem confused – they base their stance on the Talmudic "Three Oaths" which are Aggadah (narrative) and not Halakhah (law) – and even if given credibility, the last of the oaths was broken when the nations did indeed persecute Jews excessively. If someone learns what Zionism really is, and doesn't adjust their opinion, then they are still antisemitic. so, I stand by my opinion – and if an opinion is based on a false interpretation, then sloppiness isn't an excuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". If someone learns what Zionism really is, and doesn't adjust their opinion, then they are still antisemitic. " Rubbish. You can absolutely deride the "God the Real Estate Agent" theory without hating Jews - which ought to be blindingly obvious considering how many Jews also reject Zionism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Rubbish. You can absolutely deride the "God the Real Estate Agent" theory without hating Jews - which ought to be blindingly obvious considering how many Jews also reject Zionism." Only about 5% of Jews reject Zionism – they get tokenised no end. It also is not about God – Jewish culture emerged from that region, and if they had a completely different God or a different set of mythologies, they'd still come from that region. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As defined in 1897 at the first Zionist congress: "Zionism strives to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law."" We're no longer in 1897, and many flavours of Zionism exist for many flavours of people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_Zionism There is no need for a belief in/creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. There is one. It's now a matter of what to do with that nation. " If someone learns what Zionism really is, and doesn't adjust their opinion, then they are still antisemitic. so, I stand by my opinion – and if an opinion is based on a false interpretation, then sloppiness isn't an excuse. " But that isn't really helpful. The issue is that some antisemitic people try to fly under the radar by using "Zionists" as a synonym for "Jews", and some genuinely good and lovely people hate what they believe to be Zionism, despite not understanding the nuance between a murderous Hilltop Youth settler and a regular Jew who happened to be born in Israel, who loves their country. The debate has moved on from what SHOULD be to what IS. People need to look forward, not back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Rubbish. You can absolutely deride the "God the Real Estate Agent" theory without hating Jews - which ought to be blindingly obvious considering how many Jews also reject Zionism. Only about 5% of Jews reject Zionism – they get tokenised no end. It also is not about God – Jewish culture emerged from that region, and if they had a completely different God or a different set of mythologies, they'd still come from that region." But according to you, that 5% of (extremely religious) Jews are anti-Semitic, correct? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The issue is that some antisemitic people try to fly under the radar by using "Zionists" as a synonym for "Jews", and some genuinely good and lovely " I'd argue the exact opposite. The issue is that no criticism of Zionism comes without a screech of JEW HATER. T | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But that isn't really helpful. The issue is that some antisemitic people try to fly under the radar by using "Zionists" as a synonym for "Jews", and some genuinely good and lovely people hate what they believe to be Zionism, despite not understanding the nuance between a murderous Hilltop Youth settler and a regular Jew who happened to be born in Israel, who loves their country. The debate has moved on from what SHOULD be to what IS. People need to look forward, not back." Zionism is an movement that supports Jewish self-determination in the land where their culture formed. In other words, the state of Israel. You can have everything from socialist to revisionist Zionism within that framework, but it is still Zionism. I already said that today it isn't an idea; Israel exists. Therefore all expression of anti-Zionism is antisemitism – because anti-Zionism seeks to dismantle Israel. It does not seek a two-state solution, or the rights for Arabs to return, but to dismantle the state. Some believe that a one-state, non Zionist democracy is naively the way forwards – but that will also remove Jewish self-determination. If people are too confused to realise that a random extremist attacking an olive tree in Judea and Samaria does not represent the mainstream society, then they lack intellectual clarity – at best is that they are misled, but if they retain that belief after being educated, then the above still applies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". But according to you, that 5% of (extremely religious) Jews are anti-Semitic, correct?" Jewish antisemitism is a real phenomenon, but is also complex. There were even Jews who supported Hitler in the early days of the Reich (search German Vanguard for an example), because many thought they needed to be a certain type of Jew to be more accepted. But the 5% isn't just a religious minority – it includes a larger number of secular Jews who largely sit on the far left. The British led Campaign against Antisemitism use the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism – accepted by many governments and organisations worldwide – and they frequently call out Jewish antisemitism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". But according to you, that 5% of (extremely religious) Jews are anti-Semitic, correct? Jewish antisemitism is a real phenomenon, but is also complex. There were even Jews who supported Hitler in the early days of the Reich (search German Vanguard for an example), because many thought they needed to be a certain type of Jew to be more accepted. But the 5% isn't just a religious minority – it includes a larger number of secular Jews who largely sit on the far left. The British led Campaign against Antisemitism use the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism – accepted by many governments and organisations worldwide – and they frequently call out Jewish antisemitism." It only becomes conplex if you insist that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same. For the rest of us it's really simple: we can despise elements of Zionism - especially the genocides done it its name and still not be anti-Semitic. Simple really | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Therefore all expression of anti-Zionism is antisemitism – because anti-Zionism seeks to dismantle Israel. " Perhaps look at the people beneath the label. Not because you're necessarily wrong, but because they might just be not antisemitic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It only becomes conplex if you insist that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same. For the rest of us it's really simple: we can despise elements of Zionism - especially the genocides done it its name and still not be anti-Semitic. Simple really " You say "we". How do you define the Zionism that you despise? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It only becomes conplex if you insist that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same. For the rest of us it's really simple: we can despise elements of Zionism - especially the genocides done it its name and still not be anti-Semitic. Simple really You say "we". How do you define the Zionism that you despise?" . For me, the right to a homeland and to self determination doesn't give you a free pass to oppress and murder your neighbours. That idea isn't rooted in Judaism, but it's very much rooted in conservative Zionism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Therefore all expression of anti-Zionism is antisemitism – because anti-Zionism seeks to dismantle Israel. Perhaps look at the people beneath the label. Not because you're necessarily wrong, but because they might just be not antisemitic." To some extent I agree. To me, the idea that antisemitism only manifests as overt hatred, is like saying that sexism only manifests as extreme misogyny. There are ideas that are antisemitic, that some people may be completely unaware of, and there are plenty of people who have prejudices they might drop once the reasoning gets explained to them. But, if they dig their heels in or try to justify it, then it's a different matter entirely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It only becomes conplex if you insist that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same. For the rest of us it's really simple: we can despise elements of Zionism - especially the genocides done it its name and still not be anti-Semitic. Simple really You say "we". How do you define the Zionism that you despise?. For me, the right to a homeland and to self determination doesn't give you a free pass to oppress and murder your neighbours. That idea isn't rooted in Judaism, but it's very much rooted in conservative Zionism." Sure. But being specific, you don't object to the right of Jews in Israel today to be there and secure their borders. It's specifically oppression and murder of neighbours? So long as they're there and play nice, all is good? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It only becomes conplex if you insist that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same. For the rest of us it's really simple: we can despise elements of Zionism - especially the genocides done it its name and still not be anti-Semitic. Simple really " Judaism has a "return to Zion" theme as a core cultural idea – so it is a very big part of it, although for different reasons depending on who you ask. There have not been any genocides done in the name of Zionism – saying so misrepresents both intent and currently available data. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It only becomes conplex if you insist that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same. For the rest of us it's really simple: we can despise elements of Zionism - especially the genocides done it its name and still not be anti-Semitic. Simple really You say "we". How do you define the Zionism that you despise?. For me, the right to a homeland and to self determination doesn't give you a free pass to oppress and murder your neighbours. That idea isn't rooted in Judaism, but it's very much rooted in conservative Zionism. Sure. But being specific, you don't object to the right of Jews in Israel today to be there and secure their borders. It's specifically oppression and murder of neighbours? So long as they're there and play nice, all is good?" Correct. I really couldn't care less if every Hamas fighter died, but wiping out an entire nation and hand-waving it away as collateral damage isn't acceptable by any stretch - and labelling those who object as ANTI-SEMITIC is bollocks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Correct. I really couldn't care less if every Hamas fighter died, but wiping out an entire nation and hand-waving it away as collateral damage isn't acceptable by any stretch - and labelling those who object as ANTI-SEMITIC is bollocks" But this has nothing to do with Zionism, right? This is something that happens all over the world, to a greater or lesser degree: China, Sudan, Yemen. It's not Zionism that you're against, just excessive killing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really couldn't care less if every Hamas fighter died, but wiping out an entire nation and hand-waving it away as collateral damage isn't acceptable by any stretch - and labelling those who object as ANTI-SEMITIC is bollocks" Gaza was never a nation – and the population has not been wiped out. An extremely complex operation that involved entering tunnels embedded into homes, schools, hospitals – and even the UNRWA building – was clearly going to produce casualties. More so when the local rulers (Hamas) failed to provide any civil defence for their population and instead used them as human shields. That's not a reason to stand back and allow more October 7ths – which Hamas did threaten. However, anti-Zionism is an objection to the existence of Israel as a Jewish nation – removing it would wipe them out too. That means, if you agree that Israel should exist, but the government should be removed, you are still a Zionist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Correct. I really couldn't care less if every Hamas fighter died, but wiping out an entire nation and hand-waving it away as collateral damage isn't acceptable by any stretch - and labelling those who object as ANTI-SEMITIC is bollocks But this has nothing to do with Zionism, right? This is something that happens all over the world, to a greater or lesser degree: China, Sudan, Yemen. It's not Zionism that you're against, just excessive killing." . Yes it happens all over the world - and when it's done in the name of Jihad you're not terribly understanding about it are you? So why give Zionism a free pass? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really couldn't care less if every Hamas fighter died, but wiping out an entire nation and hand-waving it away as collateral damage isn't acceptable by any stretch - and labelling those who object as ANTI-SEMITIC is bollocks Gaza was never a nation – and the population has not been wiped out. An extremely complex operation that involved entering tunnels embedded into homes, schools, hospitals – and even the UNRWA building – was clearly going to produce casualties. More so when the local rulers (Hamas) failed to provide any civil defence for their population and instead used them as human shields. That's not a reason to stand back and allow more October 7ths – which Hamas did threaten. However, anti-Zionism is an objection to the existence of Israel as a Jewish nation – removing it would wipe them out too. That means, if you agree that Israel should exist, but the government should be removed, you are still a Zionist." Northern Ireland was also an extremely complex operation. Every urban action is. Why do you think we didn't just raze Belfast to the ground and then blame the IRA for the civilians we would have killed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Correct. I really couldn't care less if every Hamas fighter died, but wiping out an entire nation and hand-waving it away as collateral damage isn't acceptable by any stretch - and labelling those who object as ANTI-SEMITIC is bollocks But this has nothing to do with Zionism, right? This is something that happens all over the world, to a greater or lesser degree: China, Sudan, Yemen. It's not Zionism that you're against, just excessive killing.. Yes it happens all over the world - and when it's done in the name of Jihad you're not terribly understanding about it are you? So why give Zionism a free pass?" Are you trying to equate Zionism with Jihad? Fine... Is it your contention that those who believe in Jihad are disgusting murderers? There's no free pass here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I However, anti-Zionism is an objection to the existence of Israel as a Jewish nation – removing it would wipe them out too. ." Which we have already agreed is bollocks because of the anti Zionist Jews who live in the nation of Israel | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Northern Ireland was also an extremely complex operation. Every urban action is. Why do you think we didn't just raze Belfast to the ground and then blame the IRA for the civilians we would have killed?" The IRA did not build a complex of tunnels that would put the London Underground to shame. They did not repeatedly fire rockets into the UK and they did not raid en masse, massacring people in their homes and at a music _estival while declaring that they would wipe the UK off the map. There's no comparison. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Northern Ireland was also an extremely complex operation. Every urban action is. Why do you think we didn't just raze Belfast to the ground and then blame the IRA for the civilians we would have killed? The IRA did not build a complex of tunnels that would put the London Underground to shame. They did not repeatedly fire rockets into the UK and they did not raid en masse, massacring people in their homes and at a music _estival while declaring that they would wipe the UK off the map. There's no comparison." The IRA weren’t exactly in plain sight were they? The IRA bombed not only NI but also GB on numerous occasions. They did kill people in their homes, including innocent civilians. They certainly wanted to wipe the occupying British forces out. They also wanted to effectively wipe Northern Ireland off the map so it just became Ireland. Why do you think the Republican Irish have such empathy with Palestinians & their cause? Because of various similarities. Underdogs up against oppressive powers. The plantation of Ulster = the (re)plantation of Palestine Both born out of British colonialism as the Irish would see things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't understand Mosssad supposed to be the most effective terrorist defence unit in the world, and yet they didn't cop to all those tunnels been dug,as well as been invaded by basically a mob in pick up trucks and flying lawnmowers,in which the response time was over 3 hours,American tax payers deserve an answer how all this happened with billions of their money handed over to prevent this" Preventing the attack would not have served the current government's plan to destroy Hamas. Only the outrage caused by the attack would embolden such an extreme response. Mossad may have had an insight into the attack but it was probably played down politically. Netanyahu got his war and Trump will get his beach front property. As for the non-hamas affiliated Palestinians they didn't even figure into the calculations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Northern Ireland was also an extremely complex operation. Every urban action is. Why do you think we didn't just raze Belfast to the ground and then blame the IRA for the civilians we would have killed? The IRA did not build a complex of tunnels that would put the London Underground to shame. They did not repeatedly fire rockets into the UK and they did not raid en masse, massacring people in their homes and at a music _estival while declaring that they would wipe the UK off the map. There's no comparison." But even if they had, we would still not have bombed Belfast to rubble and killed 20,000 children in the process, would we? So the comparison stands. It sickens me to see the lengths some people will go to to excuse the actions of Israel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But even if they had, we would still not have bombed Belfast to rubble and killed 20,000 children in the process, would we? So the comparison stands. It sickens me to see the lengths some people will go to to excuse the actions of Israel." Yes, in those circumstances we probably would – but using hypothetical arguments with mismatched analogies could go on indefinitely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Even if you took Israel out of ymthe equation the middle east would still have infights. They don't want peace, they love power, guns, tanks, warships and missiles more than their own families." Oh yes, it’s all the Muslims fault. Them & their wacky religion & intolerant ways. It’s not as if you’d ever see Europeans ever waging war on one another or Europeans ever persecuting Jews is it? Thank the Lord we Europeans are so superior we can look down our noses at them & blame them for being so intolerant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Northern Ireland was also an extremely complex operation. Every urban action is. Why do you think we didn't just raze Belfast to the ground and then blame the IRA for the civilians we would have killed? The IRA did not build a complex of tunnels that would put the London Underground to shame. They did not repeatedly fire rockets into the UK and they did not raid en masse, massacring people in their homes and at a music _estival while declaring that they would wipe the UK off the map. There's no comparison." The IRA didn't dig tunnels but they hid amongst and controlled innocent people just like Hammas. They might not have fired rockets into the mainland UK but they managed a whole lot of destruction so yes the comparison is absolutely correct | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They might not have fired rockets into the mainland UK but they managed a whole lot of destruction so yes the comparison is absolutely correct" The IRA killed about 1700 people in 25 years, out of a population of 58-59 million (1999 figures). Hamas killed 1200 in a single day out of a population of 9 million. Try again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Surprised the right are so forgiving of the IRA seeing how they attempted to kill your wank bank Queen old Maggie the milk thief " Who's forgiving the IRA? BTW I'm not on the 'right' and I despised Thatcher. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They might not have fired rockets into the mainland UK but they managed a whole lot of destruction so yes the comparison is absolutely correct The IRA killed about 1700 people in 25 years, out of a population of 58-59 million (1999 figures). Hamas killed 1200 in a single day out of a population of 9 million. Try again. " No, the IRA didn’t kill as many, nor did the British government in response. Total Deaths Caused by British Forces: Sources generally cite between 300 and 366. In comparison, over 1,441 British military personnel died during the conflict. Can’t really accuse the Brits of using disproportionate force on those figures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I pay £20 per month to support Israel as do many other's" Is there some sort of charity that collects money for Israel? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I pay £20 per month to support Israel as do many other's " Lol an Israel tax | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, the IRA didn’t kill as many, nor did the British government in response. Total Deaths Caused by British Forces: Sources generally cite between 300 and 366. In comparison, over 1,441 British military personnel died during the conflict. Can’t really accuse the Brits of using disproportionate force on those figures." But we really are talking about a completely different mindset, a conflict that started for different reasons and with totally different modus operandi. In the two decades years prior to 2023, Hamas fired at least 20,000 rockets into Israel – and that's using out-of-date data. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No, the IRA didn’t kill as many, nor did the British government in response. Total Deaths Caused by British Forces: Sources generally cite between 300 and 366. In comparison, over 1,441 British military personnel died during the conflict. Can’t really accuse the Brits of using disproportionate force on those figures. But we really are talking about a completely different mindset, a conflict that started for different reasons and with totally different modus operandi. In the two decades years prior to 2023, Hamas fired at least 20,000 rockets into Israel – and that's using out-of-date data. " Completely different mindset? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They might not have fired rockets into the mainland UK but they managed a whole lot of destruction so yes the comparison is absolutely correct The IRA killed about 1700 people in 25 years, out of a population of 58-59 million (1999 figures). Hamas killed 1200 in a single day out of a population of 9 million. Try again. " Israel has killed 75,000 Gazans from a population of 2.2 million. And before we get into the tired old trope that they are all Hamas, let's add the 15,000 cattle, 60,000 sheep and 10,000 goats that Israel has also killed - 97 % of livestock wiped out. I'm guessing they aren't Hamas? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They might not have fired rockets into the mainland UK but they managed a whole lot of destruction so yes the comparison is absolutely correct The IRA killed about 1700 people in 25 years, out of a population of 58-59 million (1999 figures). Hamas killed 1200 in a single day out of a population of 9 million. Try again. Israel has killed 75,000 Gazans from a population of 2.2 million. And before we get into the tired old trope that they are all Hamas, let's add the 15,000 cattle, 60,000 sheep and 10,000 goats that Israel has also killed - 97 % of livestock wiped out. I'm guessing they aren't Hamas?" Camouflaged Hamas attackers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" They might not have fired rockets into the mainland UK but they managed a whole lot of destruction so yes the comparison is absolutely correct The IRA killed about 1700 people in 25 years, out of a population of 58-59 million (1999 figures). Hamas killed 1200 in a single day out of a population of 9 million. Try again. Israel has killed 75,000 Gazans from a population of 2.2 million. And before we get into the tired old trope that they are all Hamas, let's add the 15,000 cattle, 60,000 sheep and 10,000 goats that Israel has also killed - 97 % of livestock wiped out. I'm guessing they aren't Hamas? Camouflaged Hamas attackers?" Well either the IDF strikes aren't nearly as surgically precise as we've been told they or it's been done intentionally out of spite. Neither is a particularly good look for Israel | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Israel has killed 75,000 Gazans from a population of 2.2 million. And before we get into the tired old trope that they are all Hamas, let's add the 15,000 cattle, 60,000 sheep and 10,000 goats that Israel has also killed - 97 % of livestock wiped out. I'm guessing they aren't Hamas?" A significant number (maybe close to a half) of those were combatants – and Hamas in twenty years never built a single shelter for anyone, not even for the supporters who lined the streets to celebrate as hostages (some dead) were paraded through the crowds. As for animals, Palestinian Arabs shot a significant number of pets on October 7th and they also strap bombs to donkeys and send them into crowds – when it comes to animals, nobody is innocent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A significant number (maybe close to a half) of those were combatants " Says who? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated." If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I pay £20 per month to support Israel as do many other's Is there some sort of charity that collects money for Israel?" Yes, they have a stall in Buchanan Street Glasgow every weekend, selling merchandise and if people wish they can fund the defense of Israel with direct debit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated. If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. " erm they are at war with them, why wouldnt you destroy there food? You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. " None of us actually know whether they were targeted, eaten by hungry neighbours, accidentally killed, secret IDF agents, suicide donkeys... It's all speculation here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated. If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. erm they are at war with them, why wouldnt you destroy there food? You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. " Erm, because all of those things are classified as war crimes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. None of us actually know whether they were targeted, eaten by hungry neighbours, accidentally killed, secret IDF agents, suicide donkeys... It's all speculation here." You think that accounts for 97% of livestock being destroyed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated. If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. erm they are at war with them, why wouldnt you destroy there food? You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. Erm, because all of those things are classified as war crimes." lol whi takes any notuce of the geneva convention we hit water and power in iraq we would of dine the same in Afghanistan but the place was already a pile if rubble before we got there, have yiu not wirked it out yet those rules only apply to the likes of russia and the third world | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated. If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. erm they are at war with them, why wouldnt you destroy there food? You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. Erm, because all of those things are classified as war crimes.lol whi takes any notuce of the geneva convention we hit water and power in iraq we would of dine the same in Afghanistan but the place was already a pile if rubble before we got there, have yiu not wirked it out yet those rules only apply to the likes of russia and the third world" So you agree that it's a war crime but you don't care. Got it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated. If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. erm they are at war with them, why wouldnt you destroy there food? You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. Erm, because all of those things are classified as war crimes.lol whi takes any notuce of the geneva convention we hit water and power in iraq we would of dine the same in Afghanistan but the place was already a pile if rubble before we got there, have yiu not wirked it out yet those rules only apply to the likes of russia and the third world So you agree that it's a war crime but you don't care. Got it " i didnt say that at all try reading whats written, i pointed out the rules dont apply to the west or its freinds, the rules only apply to countrys we dont like, you may not like it but thats how it works, perhaps run for government and you may be able to build a society that dosent exist at the momment, i just look at things as how they actualy and the fact is those with the biggest sticks do you what they like | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated. If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. erm they are at war with them, why wouldnt you destroy there food? You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. Erm, because all of those things are classified as war crimes.lol whi takes any notuce of the geneva convention we hit water and power in iraq we would of dine the same in Afghanistan but the place was already a pile if rubble before we got there, have yiu not wirked it out yet those rules only apply to the likes of russia and the third world So you agree that it's a war crime but you don't care. Got it i didnt say that at all try reading whats written, i pointed out the rules dont apply to the west or its freinds, the rules only apply to countrys we dont like, you may not like it but thats how it works, perhaps run for government and you may be able to build a society that dosent exist at the momment, i just look at things as how they actualy and the fact is those with the biggest sticks do you what they like" The fact that powerful countries often get away with things isn't exactly a revelation. But if you accept that as ‘just how it works’ without criticism, you’re basically saying rules only matter when convenient. The whole point of calling something a war crime is that it shouldn’t depend on who does it. Otherwise it’s not a rule, it’s just branding.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated. If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. erm they are at war with them, why wouldnt you destroy there food? You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. Erm, because all of those things are classified as war crimes.lol whi takes any notuce of the geneva convention we hit water and power in iraq we would of dine the same in Afghanistan but the place was already a pile if rubble before we got there, have yiu not wirked it out yet those rules only apply to the likes of russia and the third world So you agree that it's a war crime but you don't care. Got it i didnt say that at all try reading whats written, i pointed out the rules dont apply to the west or its freinds, the rules only apply to countrys we dont like, you may not like it but thats how it works, perhaps run for government and you may be able to build a society that dosent exist at the momment, i just look at things as how they actualy and the fact is those with the biggest sticks do you what they like The fact that powerful countries often get away with things isn't exactly a revelation. But if you accept that as ‘just how it works’ without criticism, you’re basically saying rules only matter when convenient. The whole point of calling something a war crime is that it shouldn’t depend on who does it. Otherwise it’s not a rule, it’s just branding.”" bingo you are finally getting it no the rules don't apply to us and stamping your feet on a wingers site ain't gona change that.like I said unless u wana go into goverment and try and change it you are basically pissing in the wind | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Is there some sort of charity that collects money for Israel?" The US government? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated. If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. erm they are at war with them, why wouldnt you destroy there food? You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. Erm, because all of those things are classified as war crimes.lol whi takes any notuce of the geneva convention we hit water and power in iraq we would of dine the same in Afghanistan but the place was already a pile if rubble before we got there, have yiu not wirked it out yet those rules only apply to the likes of russia and the third world So you agree that it's a war crime but you don't care. Got it i didnt say that at all try reading whats written, i pointed out the rules dont apply to the west or its freinds, the rules only apply to countrys we dont like, you may not like it but thats how it works, perhaps run for government and you may be able to build a society that dosent exist at the momment, i just look at things as how they actualy and the fact is those with the biggest sticks do you what they like The fact that powerful countries often get away with things isn't exactly a revelation. But if you accept that as ‘just how it works’ without criticism, you’re basically saying rules only matter when convenient. The whole point of calling something a war crime is that it shouldn’t depend on who does it. Otherwise it’s not a rule, it’s just branding.”bingo you are finally getting it no the rules don't apply to us and stamping your feet on a wingers site ain't gona change that.like I said unless u wana go into goverment and try and change it you are basically pissing in the wind" So I was right - you know that it's illegal but you don't care. Crowing about your ability to oppress and kill without consequence is the morality of a thug. Own it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated. If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. erm they are at war with them, why wouldnt you destroy there food? You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. Erm, because all of those things are classified as war crimes.lol whi takes any notuce of the geneva convention we hit water and power in iraq we would of dine the same in Afghanistan but the place was already a pile if rubble before we got there, have yiu not wirked it out yet those rules only apply to the likes of russia and the third world So you agree that it's a war crime but you don't care. Got it i didnt say that at all try reading whats written, i pointed out the rules dont apply to the west or its freinds, the rules only apply to countrys we dont like, you may not like it but thats how it works, perhaps run for government and you may be able to build a society that dosent exist at the momment, i just look at things as how they actualy and the fact is those with the biggest sticks do you what they like The fact that powerful countries often get away with things isn't exactly a revelation. But if you accept that as ‘just how it works’ without criticism, you’re basically saying rules only matter when convenient. The whole point of calling something a war crime is that it shouldn’t depend on who does it. Otherwise it’s not a rule, it’s just branding.”bingo you are finally getting it no the rules don't apply to us and stamping your feet on a wingers site ain't gona change that.like I said unless u wana go into goverment and try and change it you are basically pissing in the wind So I was right - you know that it's illegal but you don't care. Crowing about your ability to oppress and kill without consequence is the morality of a thug. Own it." lol dosent matter if i care or not. And where have I been growing about ability to press and kill? Im just a realist and pointing out that the rules don't apply to the west or there allies.the fact is is you are the ones with the biggest stick you make the rules that dosent medn you follow the rules.you really do like accusing people of stuff they haven't actually said don't you. Not once have I said that I support that I'm just pointing out the reality.i don't live in a perfect world where everything iz fair and just and you don't either that's why I don't get my panties in a bunch about it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated. If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. erm they are at war with them, why wouldnt you destroy there food? You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. Erm, because all of those things are classified as war crimes.lol whi takes any notuce of the geneva convention we hit water and power in iraq we would of dine the same in Afghanistan but the place was already a pile if rubble before we got there, have yiu not wirked it out yet those rules only apply to the likes of russia and the third world So you agree that it's a war crime but you don't care. Got it i didnt say that at all try reading whats written, i pointed out the rules dont apply to the west or its freinds, the rules only apply to countrys we dont like, you may not like it but thats how it works, perhaps run for government and you may be able to build a society that dosent exist at the momment, i just look at things as how they actualy and the fact is those with the biggest sticks do you what they like The fact that powerful countries often get away with things isn't exactly a revelation. But if you accept that as ‘just how it works’ without criticism, you’re basically saying rules only matter when convenient. The whole point of calling something a war crime is that it shouldn’t depend on who does it. Otherwise it’s not a rule, it’s just branding.”bingo you are finally getting it no the rules don't apply to us and stamping your feet on a wingers site ain't gona change that.like I said unless u wana go into goverment and try and change it you are basically pissing in the wind So I was right - you know that it's illegal but you don't care. Crowing about your ability to oppress and kill without consequence is the morality of a thug. Own it. lol dosent matter if i care or not. And where have I been growing about ability to press and kill? Im just a realist and pointing out that the rules don't apply to the west or there allies.the fact is is you are the ones with the biggest stick you make the rules that dosent medn you follow the rules.you really do like accusing people of stuff they haven't actually said don't you. Not once have I said that I support that I'm just pointing out the reality.i don't live in a perfect world where everything iz fair and just and you don't either that's why I don't get my panties in a bunch about it" Your thug mentality is noted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The other issue, when citing livestock casualties – which are tragic – is that these animals were destined for food. That is, they were ensl@ved as commodities for human consumption – they were bred as resources to be murdered. Gaza is not an enclave of animal rights sanctuaries. Israel has the world's highest percentage of vegans per capita – not perfect, but better than most. Considering that humans kill 90 billion land animals for food every year – unless you're vegan, you have no right to claim any superiority over the way animals are treated. If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. erm they are at war with them, why wouldnt you destroy there food? You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. Erm, because all of those things are classified as war crimes.lol whi takes any notuce of the geneva convention we hit water and power in iraq we would of dine the same in Afghanistan but the place was already a pile if rubble before we got there, have yiu not wirked it out yet those rules only apply to the likes of russia and the third world So you agree that it's a war crime but you don't care. Got it i didnt say that at all try reading whats written, i pointed out the rules dont apply to the west or its freinds, the rules only apply to countrys we dont like, you may not like it but thats how it works, perhaps run for government and you may be able to build a society that dosent exist at the momment, i just look at things as how they actualy and the fact is those with the biggest sticks do you what they like The fact that powerful countries often get away with things isn't exactly a revelation. But if you accept that as ‘just how it works’ without criticism, you’re basically saying rules only matter when convenient. The whole point of calling something a war crime is that it shouldn’t depend on who does it. Otherwise it’s not a rule, it’s just branding.”bingo you are finally getting it no the rules don't apply to us and stamping your feet on a wingers site ain't gona change that.like I said unless u wana go into goverment and try and change it you are basically pissing in the wind So I was right - you know that it's illegal but you don't care. Crowing about your ability to oppress and kill without consequence is the morality of a thug. Own it. lol dosent matter if i care or not. And where have I been growing about ability to press and kill? Im just a realist and pointing out that the rules don't apply to the west or there allies.the fact is is you are the ones with the biggest stick you make the rules that dosent medn you follow the rules.you really do like accusing people of stuff they haven't actually said don't you. Not once have I said that I support that I'm just pointing out the reality.i don't live in a perfect world where everything iz fair and just and you don't either that's why I don't get my panties in a bunch about it Your thug mentality is noted." and your accusing people of stuff they haven't said is noted now run along and accuse other people of stuff they haven't said or done you clown | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. None of us actually know whether they were targeted, eaten by hungry neighbours, accidentally killed, secret IDF agents, suicide donkeys... It's all speculation here. You think that accounts for 97% of livestock being destroyed?" What else would you add? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. None of us actually know whether they were targeted, eaten by hungry neighbours, accidentally killed, secret IDF agents, suicide donkeys... It's all speculation here. You think that accounts for 97% of livestock being destroyed? What else would you add?" I'd add the observation that similar urban actions in similar middle Eastern environments with similar levels of infrastructure damage (Aleppo, Mosul), didn't result in almost total destruction of livestock. It's not typical and it's not inevitable. And if we agree that a chicken is not a combatant, then that points strongly towards intentional eradication of a civilian food source by Israel. Are you sure that these are the good guys?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. None of us actually know whether they were targeted, eaten by hungry neighbours, accidentally killed, secret IDF agents, suicide donkeys... It's all speculation here. You think that accounts for 97% of livestock being destroyed? What else would you add? I'd add the observation that similar urban actions in similar middle Eastern environments with similar levels of infrastructure damage (Aleppo, Mosul), didn't result in almost total destruction of livestock. It's not typical and it's not inevitable. And if we agree that a chicken is not a combatant, then that points strongly towards intentional eradication of a civilian food source by Israel. Are you sure that these are the good guys??" It's very hard to follow the thread of this. Again. ------------------------------------- Festival: Targeting animals might have a reason. TM: We can't know - they might have been (list of reasons) targeted, killed by accident, eaten or something else. (point being, we're all speculating) PP: You think that accounts for all those destroyed? TM: What else would you add (to the list of reasons)? PP: Comparison to other conflicts, Chickens aren't combatants, intentional eradication - are these the good guys? ------------------------------------- Exactly - it's all speculation. We don't know and we're making up reasons. Aleppo had much livestock in the urban environment? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. None of us actually know whether they were targeted, eaten by hungry neighbours, accidentally killed, secret IDF agents, suicide donkeys... It's all speculation here. You think that accounts for 97% of livestock being destroyed? What else would you add? I'd add the observation that similar urban actions in similar middle Eastern environments with similar levels of infrastructure damage (Aleppo, Mosul), didn't result in almost total destruction of livestock. It's not typical and it's not inevitable. And if we agree that a chicken is not a combatant, then that points strongly towards intentional eradication of a civilian food source by Israel. Are you sure that these are the good guys?? It's very hard to follow the thread of this. Again. ------------------------------------- Festival: Targeting animals might have a reason. TM: We can't know - they might have been (list of reasons) targeted, killed by accident, eaten or something else. (point being, we're all speculating) PP: You think that accounts for all those destroyed? TM: What else would you add (to the list of reasons)? PP: Comparison to other conflicts, Chickens aren't combatants, intentional eradication - are these the good guys? ------------------------------------- Exactly - it's all speculation. We don't know and we're making up reasons. Aleppo had much livestock in the urban environment?" But we do know that a 97% eradication of livestock isn't typical and isn't inevitable, so the speculation narrows. Mr Thug may well beat his chest about war crimes being irrelevant because the biggest bully can do whatever he likes and suck it up, buttercup, but that doesn't really jive with normal people. So again, are you sure you're supporting the good guys? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So again, are you sure you're supporting the good guys?" Just explain how you go from someone pointing out to someone against whom you are arguing that they are speculating (as are we all) to repeatedly demanding that that person answers whether they're supporting "the good guys"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You do realise the poibt of war? The goal is to desrroy your enemy, food supply power supply water supply why would you leave them intact. None of us actually know whether they were targeted, eaten by hungry neighbours, accidentally killed, secret IDF agents, suicide donkeys... It's all speculation here. You think that accounts for 97% of livestock being destroyed? What else would you add? I'd add the observation that similar urban actions in similar middle Eastern environments with similar levels of infrastructure damage (Aleppo, Mosul), didn't result in almost total destruction of livestock. It's not typical and it's not inevitable. And if we agree that a chicken is not a combatant, then that points strongly towards intentional eradication of a civilian food source by Israel. Are you sure that these are the good guys?? It's very hard to follow the thread of this. Again. ------------------------------------- Festival: Targeting animals might have a reason. TM: We can't know - they might have been (list of reasons) targeted, killed by accident, eaten or something else. (point being, we're all speculating) PP: You think that accounts for all those destroyed? TM: What else would you add (to the list of reasons)? PP: Comparison to other conflicts, Chickens aren't combatants, intentional eradication - are these the good guys? ------------------------------------- Exactly - it's all speculation. We don't know and we're making up reasons. Aleppo had much livestock in the urban environment? But we do know that a 97% eradication of livestock isn't typical and isn't inevitable, so the speculation narrows. Mr Thug may well beat his chest about war crimes being irrelevant because the biggest bully can do whatever he likes and suck it up, buttercup, but that doesn't really jive with normal people. So again, are you sure you're supporting the good guys?" haha Mr thug beating his chest when have I done that? I've just pointed out certain countryz don't follow thd rules they make.mr/Mrs clown may not like that but hey i suppose when you have your location as narnia you are living in a world that isn't based in reality | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just explain how you go from someone pointing out to someone against whom you are arguing that they are speculating (as are we all) to repeatedly demanding that that person answers whether they're supporting "the good guys"?" The only ones still "speculating" about the reason for eradicating almost all the livestock that Gazans need to survive are the ones who are dead keen to give Israel a free pass for whatever it does, however appalling. For the rest of us it's very clear. I imagine if Hamas used the same level of lies and denial it would look something like this: 1200 people were killed on October 6 WE CAN'T TRUST ISRAELI NUMBERS They were mostly civilians THE VAST MAJORITY WERE COMBATANTS POSING AS CIVILIANS Many of the dead were children THEY WERE HUMAN SHIELDS They took hostages ISRAEL STARTED IT BY IMPRISONING PALESTINIANS They attacked hospitals THE HOSPITALS CONCEALED MILITARY TARGETS It was a series of crimes against humanity THIS IS WAR. EVERYONE COMMITS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just explain how you go from someone pointing out to someone against whom you are arguing that they are speculating (as are we all) to repeatedly demanding that that person answers whether they're supporting "the good guys"? The only ones still "speculating" about the reason for eradicating almost all the livestock that Gazans need to survive are the ones who are dead keen to give Israel a free pass for whatever it does, however appalling. For the rest of us it's very clear. I imagine if Hamas used the same level of lies and denial it would look something like this: 1200 people were killed on October 6 WE CAN'T TRUST ISRAELI NUMBERS They were mostly civilians THE VAST MAJORITY WERE COMBATANTS POSING AS CIVILIANS Many of the dead were children THEY WERE HUMAN SHIELDS They took hostages ISRAEL STARTED IT BY IMPRISONING PALESTINIANS They attacked hospitals THE HOSPITALS CONCEALED MILITARY TARGETS It was a series of crimes against humanity THIS IS WAR. EVERYONE COMMITS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. " Sorry, but you've really gone off the deep end with this one. You seem to be looking for a fight where there are none. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Keep on speculating. After all, how can we be sure that Hamas was responsible for any of the October 6 deaths? It might have been accidental or it might have been irate Israel neighbours. We will never know for sure. It also might be a crime against humanity but honestly, so what? Everyone does it. No big deal." What is with October 6th and the neve know for sure who attacked? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Keep on speculating. After all, how can we be sure that Hamas was responsible for any of the October 6 deaths? It might have been accidental or it might have been irate Israel neighbours. We will never know for sure. It also might be a crime against humanity but honestly, so what? Everyone does it. No big deal." The fact that you can't even get the date right shows how much attention you pay to this. I am reasonably confident that some individual IDF soldiers have committed war crimes. I do not believe that any such crimes were sanctioned by the Israeli government, and it is fairly clear that they attempt to reign in those who break the rules. However, I am beyond confident that the attack on October 7th was in itself a war crime – sanctioned by their leadership, and with no code of conduct trying to establish order within its ranks. What is a state (not just Israel) supposed to do when faced with such an attack? People hold Israel to such a high standard they pretty much expect them to sit back and sigh, "Oh those Palestinians and their pea shooters, lol", and then allow them to carry on ad nauseam. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we agree that the livestock were not Hamas, then explain why the Israelis chose to kill them. " Firstly, "chose" is a loaded question – we do not know how, because the data is not there. However, it is not right for animals to suffer in human war – it happens everywhere, in every conflict, and it is not fair. Tens of millions of animals were killed in WW2 for example – in the UK there was a mass killing of 750,000 pets due to fears about ability to care and feed them (Google The British Pet Massacre). ---------------- Anyway, the 97% of livestock figure actually comes from the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, an organisation founded by a Palestinian. The figure may or may not be accurate, but the same 97% figure was used in 2021 for the drinking water in Gaza. It's also often accused of politicised anti-Israel bias and distortion as part of ongoing delegitimising campaign. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Keep on speculating. After all, how can we be sure that Hamas was responsible for any of the October 6 deaths? It might have been accidental or it might have been irate Israel neighbours. We will never know for sure. It also might be a crime against humanity but honestly, so what? Everyone does it. No big deal. The fact that you can't even get the date right shows how much attention you pay to this. I am reasonably confident that some individual IDF soldiers have committed war crimes. I do not believe that any such crimes were sanctioned by the Israeli government, and it is fairly clear that they attempt to reign in those who break the rules. However, I am beyond confident that the attack on October 7th was in itself a war crime – sanctioned by their leadership, and with no code of conduct trying to establish order within its ranks. What is a state (not just Israel) supposed to do when faced with such an attack? People hold Israel to such a high standard they pretty much expect them to sit back and sigh, "Oh those Palestinians and their pea shooters, lol", and then allow them to carry on ad nauseam." Given the aftermath would Hamas do it again, and would the reported 75% of Palestinians who supported them 1200 Israelis murdered 75,000 Palestinians killed 270,000 injured 1.9 million displaced 80% homes and 60% businesses destroyed 100,000 tonnes of ordnance fallen on Gaza Gaza will be on hand outs and welfare for 100 years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gaza will be on hand outs and welfare for 100 years" Business as usual then! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gaza will be on hand outs and welfare for 100 years Business as usual then!" Not at all, Trump will turn it into a Luxury Vegas resort with beach and everything. Just need to get the riff raff Palestinians out and off elsewhere | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gaza will be on hand outs and welfare for 100 years Business as usual then!" Careful...your bigotry is showing. But how do you even know that Hamas was responsible for the initial attack? Do you have proof? (Just putting out the same bollocks as the Israel apologists) Oh and vegans 🤣🤣🤣🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gaza will be on hand outs and welfare for 100 years Business as usual then! Careful...your bigotry is showing. But how do you even know that Hamas was responsible for the initial attack? Do you have proof? (Just putting out the same bollocks as the Israel apologists)" Gaza has depended on aid for at least two decades – after Hamas came to power and both Israel and Egypt blocked their crossings. So yes, business as usual. I wonder why any sovereign state would blockade a terrorist enclave. 🤔 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gaza will be on hand outs and welfare for 100 years Business as usual then! Careful...your bigotry is showing. But how do you even know that Hamas was responsible for the initial attack? Do you have proof? (Just putting out the same bollocks as the Israel apologists) Gaza has depended on aid for at least two decades – after Hamas came to power and both Israel and Egypt blocked their crossings. So yes, business as usual. I wonder why any sovereign state would blockade a terrorist enclave. 🤔 " How do you know any of that is true? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" How do you know any of that is true?" What sort of ridiculous question is this? You're either trolling or you lack intellectual and moral clarity. Read some books – and fact-check them. Analyse the data, find out for yourself. Take an active interest rather than spouting misinformed opinions on subjects you seem to have limited knowledge on (considering you already got the Oct 7th date wrong). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
