FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Will you condemn Hamas attack
Will you condemn Hamas attack
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I absolutely condemn the Hamas attack, as I did on the other thread. (Does this exercise have a point?)" Probably to spark a debate when someone says "Yes, but...". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone has condemned the Hamas attacks. The problem is about half the people here using every excuse under the sun to not condemn the mass killings of civilians in Gaza."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone has condemned the Hamas attacks. The problem is about half the people here using every excuse under the sun to not condemn the mass killings of civilians in Gaza." They haven’t though. The weekend the attack happened we even had people downplaying them and questioning them. In answer to the OP question. I condemn the whole shit show. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many times? Did so at the time.. Now if everyone can also condemn the deaths of innocent Palestinians please then we can all have a great big hug eh.. "I absolutely condemn the deaths of innocent Palestinians. Hamas has an awful lot of blood on its hands. I am sure Israel does what it can to minimise the deaths, but when you have a fascist terrorist dictatorship running a country that won’t permit its civilian population to leave, that hides its military operations behind civilians, and when neighbouring countries refuse to take in any Palestinian refugees because they know it’s just asking for trouble, civilian casualties are sadly inevitable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone has condemned the Hamas attacks. The problem is about half the people here using every excuse under the sun to not condemn the mass killings of civilians in Gaza. They haven’t though. The weekend the attack happened we even had people downplaying them and questioning them. In answer to the OP question. I condemn the whole shit show. " It is also interesting to note that the first pro Palestinian demonstration was before any Israeli retaliation (Monday after the Saturday attack). Organised by several UK groups including Friends of Al-Aqsa, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Palestinian Forum in Britain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I am sure Israel does what it can to minimise the deaths, " I’m not so sure, but hey ho. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone has condemned the Hamas attacks. The problem is about half the people here using every excuse under the sun to not condemn the mass killings of civilians in Gaza. They haven’t though. The weekend the attack happened we even had people downplaying them and questioning them. In answer to the OP question. I condemn the whole shit show. It is also interesting to note that the first pro Palestinian demonstration was before any Israeli retaliation (Monday after the Saturday attack). Organised by several UK groups including Friends of Al-Aqsa, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Palestinian Forum in Britain." After Israel declared war though. Let’s stick to facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I definitely condemn it. Absolutely shocked at the outbreak of antisemitism on our streets and the failure of the authorities to deal with it." This and also how bias the news are reporting about it, standing on hamas side. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I definitely condemn it. Absolutely shocked at the outbreak of antisemitism on our streets and the failure of the authorities to deal with it.This and also how bias the news are reporting about it, standing on hamas side." Which news outlets are ‘standing on hamas side’? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I definitely condemn it. Absolutely shocked at the outbreak of antisemitism on our streets and the failure of the authorities to deal with it.This and also how bias the news are reporting about it, standing on hamas side. Which news outlets are ‘standing on hamas side’?" I would say that it is the general feel I get from mainstream media, do you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also interesting to note that the first pro Palestinian demonstration was before any Israeli retaliation (Monday after the Saturday attack). Organised by several UK groups including Friends of Al-Aqsa, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Palestinian Forum in Britain. After Israel declared war though. Let’s stick to facts. " Exactly. So it's not the methods or casualties that were being objected to, it was an objection to any Israeli military action at all. However Israel responded, they were always going to be "in the wrong" to many people. The numbers, to many, just increase the trauma entertainment value and sense of righteous indignation. That's the awful reality of crises like this. This is especially true for surrounding counties who won't take in refugees - those countries are more right wing than the Tories, who will not absorb refugees from 75 years ago. Their concern is more anti Israel than pro Palestinian. People who are truly pro Palestinian should be vehemently anti Hamas, whether or not they are ALSO anti Israel (which it is their right to be). The narrative was anti Israel before anything else got off the ground, with no focus on the atrocities committed by Hamas and the peril in which they put the people they purport to govern. No Hamas = Gaza without any blockade, without any Jews or Israelis (historical fact after 2005). Whatever the crimes and oppression of Israel was before 2005, everything that has happened in Gaza since then is squarely on the heads of Hamas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I definitely condemn it. Absolutely shocked at the outbreak of antisemitism on our streets and the failure of the authorities to deal with it.This and also how bias the news are reporting about it, standing on hamas side. Which news outlets are ‘standing on hamas side’?I would say that it is the general feel I get from mainstream media, do you?" The media I’ve seen has been pretty well reported. Certainly not standing on the side of a terrorist organisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is also interesting to note that the first pro Palestinian demonstration was before any Israeli retaliation (Monday after the Saturday attack). Organised by several UK groups including Friends of Al-Aqsa, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Muslim Association of Britain and the Palestinian Forum in Britain. After Israel declared war though. Let’s stick to facts. Exactly. So it's not the methods or casualties that were being objected to, it was an objection to any Israeli military action at all. However Israel responded, they were always going to be "in the wrong" to many people. The numbers, to many, just increase the trauma entertainment value and sense of righteous indignation. That's the awful reality of crises like this. This is especially true for surrounding counties who won't take in refugees - those countries are more right wing than the Tories, who will not absorb refugees from 75 years ago. Their concern is more anti Israel than pro Palestinian. People who are truly pro Palestinian should be vehemently anti Hamas, whether or not they are ALSO anti Israel (which it is their right to be). The narrative was anti Israel before anything else got off the ground, with no focus on the atrocities committed by Hamas and the peril in which they put the people they purport to govern. No Hamas = Gaza without any blockade, without any Jews or Israelis (historical fact after 2005). Whatever the crimes and oppression of Israel was before 2005, everything that has happened in Gaza since then is squarely on the heads of Hamas." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As for the deaths in Gaza. The blame must rest four square on the shoulders of Hamas. They started this shit show. " This shit show didn’t start in October. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many times? Did so at the time.. Now if everyone can also condemn the deaths of innocent Palestinians please then we can all have a great big hug eh..
I absolutely condemn the deaths of innocent Palestinians. Hamas has an awful lot of blood on its hands.
I am sure Israel does what it can to minimise the deaths, but when you have a fascist terrorist dictatorship running a country that won’t permit its civilian population to leave, that hides its military operations behind civilians, and when neighbouring countries refuse to take in any Palestinian refugees because they know it’s just asking for trouble, civilian casualties are sadly inevitable."Agree but doesn't justify blocking humanitarian aid to millions.. There are moderate Israeli people who lay a large portion of the blame on the hardliners and Netanyahu.. Equally there are moderate Palestinians who want shot of Hamas.. It's those voices that will possibly hold the key to the future if they're allowed on both side to do so.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I definitely condemn it. Absolutely shocked at the outbreak of antisemitism on our streets and the failure of the authorities to deal with it.This and also how bias the news are reporting about it, standing on hamas side." Given they are rightly outlawed by our government shag I'm not sure your last point is correct? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I am sure Israel does what it can to minimise the deaths, I’m not so sure, but hey ho. " Yes, they do, but hamas are hiding among civilians, it is a strategy they have, even the hamas officials are admitting it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I am sure Israel does what it can to minimise the deaths, I’m not so sure, but hey ho. Yes, they do, but hamas are hiding among civilians, it is a strategy they have, even the hamas officials are admitting it." I agree, they are. In which case, bombing isn’t the answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I am sure Israel does what it can to minimise the deaths, I’m not so sure, but hey ho. Yes, they do, but hamas are hiding among civilians, it is a strategy they have, even the hamas officials are admitting it. I agree, they are. In which case, bombing isn’t the answer." That is right. I reckon that hamas should face them right on instead of hiding. I think that the outcome might have been differently then. I think that the reason they do it is because they know that israel is more equipped than them to win. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I am sure Israel does what it can to minimise the deaths, I’m not so sure, but hey ho. Yes, they do, but hamas are hiding among civilians, it is a strategy they have, even the hamas officials are admitting it. I agree, they are. In which case, bombing isn’t the answer.That is right. I reckon that hamas should face them right on instead of hiding. I think that the outcome might have been differently then. I think that the reason they do it is because they know that israel is more equipped than them to win." Yes, I don’t think Hamas are stupid. So we agree that Israel bombing Palestine isn’t the answer? And that maybe boots on the ground targeting Hamas directly would be a better way of dealing with the situation? Maybe offering an olive branch to Palestinians who want safety and don’t support Hamas? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. " Oh I see. You started a thread wanting a series of ‘yes’ answers. Nobody has refused to condemn the attacks on this thread. Nobody refused on the last thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. Oh I see. You started a thread wanting a series of ‘yes’ answers. Nobody has refused to condemn the attacks on this thread. Nobody refused on the last thread. " It stated it in the OP. If you don't agree with my thread, you're welcome to not partake. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. " But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. Oh I see. You started a thread wanting a series of ‘yes’ answers. Nobody has refused to condemn the attacks on this thread. Nobody refused on the last thread. It stated it in the OP. If you don't agree with my thread, you're welcome to not partake. " So just to get your ground rules clear here, someone saying ‘everybody has condemned the attacks’ doesn’t qualify as a condemnation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children." Nope. You’re wrong. You most absolutely condemn Hamas and make no further comment, else you’re a Jew hating scumbag. There’s nothing more to add.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children." It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. Oh I see. You started a thread wanting a series of ‘yes’ answers. Nobody has refused to condemn the attacks on this thread. Nobody refused on the last thread. It stated it in the OP. If you don't agree with my thread, you're welcome to not partake. So just to get your ground rules clear here, someone saying ‘everybody has condemned the attacks’ doesn’t qualify as a condemnation?" No it does not. Its nothing but a blanket statement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. Oh I see. You started a thread wanting a series of ‘yes’ answers. Nobody has refused to condemn the attacks on this thread. Nobody refused on the last thread. It stated it in the OP. If you don't agree with my thread, you're welcome to not partake. So just to get your ground rules clear here, someone saying ‘everybody has condemned the attacks’ doesn’t qualify as a condemnation? No it does not. Its nothing but a blanket statement. " Everybody is inclusive of self though, is it not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. Oh I see. You started a thread wanting a series of ‘yes’ answers. Nobody has refused to condemn the attacks on this thread. Nobody refused on the last thread. It stated it in the OP. If you don't agree with my thread, you're welcome to not partake. So just to get your ground rules clear here, someone saying ‘everybody has condemned the attacks’ doesn’t qualify as a condemnation? No it does not. Its nothing but a blanket statement. Everybody is inclusive of self though, is it not?" But it's not a true statement, so how would I know if its self-inclusive? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. Oh I see. You started a thread wanting a series of ‘yes’ answers. Nobody has refused to condemn the attacks on this thread. Nobody refused on the last thread. It stated it in the OP. If you don't agree with my thread, you're welcome to not partake. So just to get your ground rules clear here, someone saying ‘everybody has condemned the attacks’ doesn’t qualify as a condemnation? No it does not. Its nothing but a blanket statement. Everybody is inclusive of self though, is it not? But it's not a true statement, so how would I know if its self-inclusive?" Well I’d say it’s true - I didn’t see anyone refusing to condemn hamas on either thread. Including the poster who made the comment about everybody. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. " So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. Oh I see. You started a thread wanting a series of ‘yes’ answers. Nobody has refused to condemn the attacks on this thread. Nobody refused on the last thread. It stated it in the OP. If you don't agree with my thread, you're welcome to not partake. So just to get your ground rules clear here, someone saying ‘everybody has condemned the attacks’ doesn’t qualify as a condemnation? No it does not. Its nothing but a blanket statement. Everybody is inclusive of self though, is it not? But it's not a true statement, so how would I know if its self-inclusive? Well I’d say it’s true - I didn’t see anyone refusing to condemn hamas on either thread. Including the poster who made the comment about everybody. " As I've stated already. No one is stupid enough to point blank refuse. Instead they wriggle. You know this as well as anyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. " Let’s turn it on its head, because I think you’re wrong. Give us one example of someone on this thread saying that they don’t condemn Hamas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point?" You don't need to see the point. The people who want to see the point, will. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. Oh I see. You started a thread wanting a series of ‘yes’ answers. Nobody has refused to condemn the attacks on this thread. Nobody refused on the last thread. It stated it in the OP. If you don't agree with my thread, you're welcome to not partake. So just to get your ground rules clear here, someone saying ‘everybody has condemned the attacks’ doesn’t qualify as a condemnation? No it does not. Its nothing but a blanket statement. Everybody is inclusive of self though, is it not? But it's not a true statement, so how would I know if its self-inclusive? Well I’d say it’s true - I didn’t see anyone refusing to condemn hamas on either thread. Including the poster who made the comment about everybody. As I've stated already. No one is stupid enough to point blank refuse. Instead they wriggle. You know this as well as anyone. " Oh so now you’re perceiving whether someone condemns them or not? Based upon what exact metric? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. Oh I see. You started a thread wanting a series of ‘yes’ answers. Nobody has refused to condemn the attacks on this thread. Nobody refused on the last thread. It stated it in the OP. If you don't agree with my thread, you're welcome to not partake. So just to get your ground rules clear here, someone saying ‘everybody has condemned the attacks’ doesn’t qualify as a condemnation? No it does not. Its nothing but a blanket statement. Everybody is inclusive of self though, is it not? But it's not a true statement, so how would I know if its self-inclusive? Well I’d say it’s true - I didn’t see anyone refusing to condemn hamas on either thread. Including the poster who made the comment about everybody. As I've stated already. No one is stupid enough to point blank refuse. Instead they wriggle. You know this as well as anyone. Oh so now you’re perceiving whether someone condemns them or not? Based upon what exact metric? " Based on their words mate. It's not a hard concept to understand. I've offered a really simple thread here. Again, really easy to understand if you read the OP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point? You don't need to see the point. The people who want to see the point, will. " Seriously now dude, this is abject nonsense. Everyone on this thread has condemned the Hamas attacks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point? You don't need to see the point. The people who want to see the point, will. " Sorry Feisty but this is all plain weird. You are now implying some kind of exclusivity of thought? All I can see is an attempt to out people for holding different views to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point? You don't need to see the point. The people who want to see the point, will. Sorry Feisty but this is all plain weird. You are now implying some kind of exclusivity of thought? All I can see is an attempt to out people for holding different views to you. " I'm free to 'out' people with different views aren't I? You answered the OP. I'm fascinated by the people who refuse to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point? You don't need to see the point. The people who want to see the point, will. Sorry Feisty but this is all plain weird. You are now implying some kind of exclusivity of thought? All I can see is an attempt to out people for holding different views to you. I'm free to 'out' people with different views aren't I? You answered the OP. I'm fascinated by the people who refuse to. " You mean the people who haven’t replied to the thread? Maybe they’re at work or something. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point? You don't need to see the point. The people who want to see the point, will. Sorry Feisty but this is all plain weird. You are now implying some kind of exclusivity of thought? All I can see is an attempt to out people for holding different views to you. I'm free to 'out' people with different views aren't I? You answered the OP. I'm fascinated by the people who refuse to. You mean the people who haven’t replied to the thread? Maybe they’re at work or something. " Birldn... does this count as some sort of pile on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point? You don't need to see the point. The people who want to see the point, will. Sorry Feisty but this is all plain weird. You are now implying some kind of exclusivity of thought? All I can see is an attempt to out people for holding different views to you. I'm free to 'out' people with different views aren't I? You answered the OP. I'm fascinated by the people who refuse to. " But the ones who actually refuse likely won’t post in here. But that doesn’t mean everyone who doesn’t post in this thread feels the same way. They might just be ignoring the thread! It seems all rather pointless! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point? You don't need to see the point. The people who want to see the point, will. Sorry Feisty but this is all plain weird. You are now implying some kind of exclusivity of thought? All I can see is an attempt to out people for holding different views to you. I'm free to 'out' people with different views aren't I? You answered the OP. I'm fascinated by the people who refuse to. You mean the people who haven’t replied to the thread? Maybe they’re at work or something. Birldn... does this count as some sort of pile on?" Hey, I’m just trying to understand the qualification for what constitutes condemnation. I think I got it though. I won’t be outed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point? You don't need to see the point. The people who want to see the point, will. Sorry Feisty but this is all plain weird. You are now implying some kind of exclusivity of thought? All I can see is an attempt to out people for holding different views to you. I'm free to 'out' people with different views aren't I? You answered the OP. I'm fascinated by the people who refuse to. You mean the people who haven’t replied to the thread? Maybe they’re at work or something. Birldn... does this count as some sort of pile on?" No because: a) you started the thread and are getting responses. b) you chose to start direct conversations with more than one poster in this thread and they are responding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point? You don't need to see the point. The people who want to see the point, will. Sorry Feisty but this is all plain weird. You are now implying some kind of exclusivity of thought? All I can see is an attempt to out people for holding different views to you. I'm free to 'out' people with different views aren't I? You answered the OP. I'm fascinated by the people who refuse to. You mean the people who haven’t replied to the thread? Maybe they’re at work or something. Birldn... does this count as some sort of pile on? No because: a) you started the thread and are getting responses. b) you chose to start direct conversations with more than one poster in this thread and they are responding." He's jumping on my replies to you.. Which makes it seem like 2 on 1. I'm just wondering what constitutes a pile on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Based on their words mate. It's not a hard concept to understand. I've offered a really simple thread here. Again, really easy to understand if you read the OP. " It's also not hard to understand that when someone says 'done so already' that actually means they still do, unless of course they have posted otherwise.. You know that to be the case in relation to the question you asked as equally the simplicity is applied countless times a day on multitudes of subjects.. There's been some emotional input on all sides of the discussion post the 7th October, it's a fucking awful situation for those who were and are innocents caught up in it.. By all means call out anyone who has expressed support for Hamas and in my experience on here that will be rightly supported and those views condemned by the vast majority regardless of whatever political viewpoint.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So far we've had... 'Already have' and 'everyone condemns', with offering condemnation. You see what is meant by there are people who refuse to condemn when point blank asked? That's what I did, I point blank asked for condemnation. But why is that so important? What does it actually achieve? Every action causes a reaction, ad infinitum. Should there be a thread condemning the Israeli attack on Gaza that refuses to acknowledge the actions of Hamas? It is impossible to remove all context. And adding context and history does not excuse barbarity or horrendous actions on the part of anyone. But it does try to make sense of why something has led to something else. Condemning Hamas is not mutually exclusive of condemning the Israeli Govt. Feeling utter sadness for the death of Israeli children is not mutually exclusive of feeling utter sadness for the death of Palestinian children. It is important because we keep being told 'everyone condemns Hamas'. That's bullshit, and this thread proves it. So by that rationale anyone with the balls to come in this thread and say “I do not condemn Hamas” is your target AND everyone who does not post at all but has been in other relevant threads? I really cannot see the point? You don't need to see the point. The people who want to see the point, will. Sorry Feisty but this is all plain weird. You are now implying some kind of exclusivity of thought? All I can see is an attempt to out people for holding different views to you. I'm free to 'out' people with different views aren't I? You answered the OP. I'm fascinated by the people who refuse to. You mean the people who haven’t replied to the thread? Maybe they’re at work or something. Birldn... does this count as some sort of pile on? No because: a) you started the thread and are getting responses. b) you chose to start direct conversations with more than one poster in this thread and they are responding. He's jumping on my replies to you.. Which makes it seem like 2 on 1. I'm just wondering what constitutes a pile on?" To be fair I think I replied to one of your replies to Bassplayer so...! I think this became a threeway conversation. I do not think either if us were attacking or insulting you. I think that would be a pile on. Also if a third or fourth person now jumped in. However, that third or fourth person could start a new post to ask you questions? I think “pile on” is determined by the nature of the posts too, not just number of people engaging. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Based on their words mate. It's not a hard concept to understand. I've offered a really simple thread here. Again, really easy to understand if you read the OP. It's also not hard to understand that when someone says 'done so already' that actually means they still do, unless of course they have posted otherwise.. You know that to be the case in relation to the question you asked as equally the simplicity is applied countless times a day on multitudes of subjects.. There's been some emotional input on all sides of the discussion post the 7th October, it's a fucking awful situation for those who were and are innocents caught up in it.. By all means call out anyone who has expressed support for Hamas and in my experience on here that will be rightly supported and those views condemned by the vast majority regardless of whatever political viewpoint.." 'Done so already' does not actually mean someone has done so. It's gonna be very difficult for anyone to prove either way. Hence the thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a new question for the OP (Feisty)... Do you condemn Israeli bombs killing Palestinian children. YES/NO?" Start a thread  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a new question for the OP (Feisty)... Do you condemn Israeli bombs killing Palestinian children. YES/NO? Start a thread "Answer the question. Surely it is a simple YES/NO right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a new question for the OP (Feisty)... Do you condemn Israeli bombs killing Palestinian children. YES/NO? Start a thread
Answer the question. Surely it is a simple YES/NO right?"The whole point in this thread is so that we can avoid... yeah but... Start a thread. I'll say no more about it on this one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Based on their words mate. It's not a hard concept to understand. I've offered a really simple thread here. Again, really easy to understand if you read the OP. It's also not hard to understand that when someone says 'done so already' that actually means they still do, unless of course they have posted otherwise.. You know that to be the case in relation to the question you asked as equally the simplicity is applied countless times a day on multitudes of subjects.. There's been some emotional input on all sides of the discussion post the 7th October, it's a fucking awful situation for those who were and are innocents caught up in it.. By all means call out anyone who has expressed support for Hamas and in my experience on here that will be rightly supported and those views condemned by the vast majority regardless of whatever political viewpoint.. 'Done so already' does not actually mean someone has done so. It's gonna be very difficult for anyone to prove either way. Hence the thread. " What does it mean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Based on their words mate. It's not a hard concept to understand. I've offered a really simple thread here. Again, really easy to understand if you read the OP. It's also not hard to understand that when someone says 'done so already' that actually means they still do, unless of course they have posted otherwise.. You know that to be the case in relation to the question you asked as equally the simplicity is applied countless times a day on multitudes of subjects.. There's been some emotional input on all sides of the discussion post the 7th October, it's a fucking awful situation for those who were and are innocents caught up in it.. By all means call out anyone who has expressed support for Hamas and in my experience on here that will be rightly supported and those views condemned by the vast majority regardless of whatever political viewpoint.. 'Done so already' does not actually mean someone has done so. It's gonna be very difficult for anyone to prove either way. Hence the thread. What does it mean? " My daughter told me she done her homework. Does that mean conclusively that she done her homework? Someone arrested said 'it wasn't me officer'. Does that mean that it wasn't actually him? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Based on their words mate. It's not a hard concept to understand. I've offered a really simple thread here. Again, really easy to understand if you read the OP. It's also not hard to understand that when someone says 'done so already' that actually means they still do, unless of course they have posted otherwise.. You know that to be the case in relation to the question you asked as equally the simplicity is applied countless times a day on multitudes of subjects.. There's been some emotional input on all sides of the discussion post the 7th October, it's a fucking awful situation for those who were and are innocents caught up in it.. By all means call out anyone who has expressed support for Hamas and in my experience on here that will be rightly supported and those views condemned by the vast majority regardless of whatever political viewpoint.. 'Done so already' does not actually mean someone has done so. It's gonna be very difficult for anyone to prove either way. Hence the thread. What does it mean? My daughter told me she done her homework. Does that mean conclusively that she done her homework? Someone arrested said 'it wasn't me officer'. Does that mean that it wasn't actually him? " Except we had another thread, so if people had condemned it there, we have evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Based on their words mate. It's not a hard concept to understand. I've offered a really simple thread here. Again, really easy to understand if you read the OP. It's also not hard to understand that when someone says 'done so already' that actually means they still do, unless of course they have posted otherwise.. You know that to be the case in relation to the question you asked as equally the simplicity is applied countless times a day on multitudes of subjects.. There's been some emotional input on all sides of the discussion post the 7th October, it's a fucking awful situation for those who were and are innocents caught up in it.. By all means call out anyone who has expressed support for Hamas and in my experience on here that will be rightly supported and those views condemned by the vast majority regardless of whatever political viewpoint.. 'Done so already' does not actually mean someone has done so. It's gonna be very difficult for anyone to prove either way. Hence the thread. What does it mean? My daughter told me she done her homework. Does that mean conclusively that she done her homework? Someone arrested said 'it wasn't me officer'. Does that mean that it wasn't actually him? " Only you will know the level of trust that you share in your daughter's honesty so can't answer that.. A response in affirmation doesn't have to be yes to mean yes, if the response was negative then the person asking would seek to clarify.. again you know that full well.. Language is more nuanced.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Based on their words mate. It's not a hard concept to understand. I've offered a really simple thread here. Again, really easy to understand if you read the OP. It's also not hard to understand that when someone says 'done so already' that actually means they still do, unless of course they have posted otherwise.. You know that to be the case in relation to the question you asked as equally the simplicity is applied countless times a day on multitudes of subjects.. There's been some emotional input on all sides of the discussion post the 7th October, it's a fucking awful situation for those who were and are innocents caught up in it.. By all means call out anyone who has expressed support for Hamas and in my experience on here that will be rightly supported and those views condemned by the vast majority regardless of whatever political viewpoint.. 'Done so already' does not actually mean someone has done so. It's gonna be very difficult for anyone to prove either way. Hence the thread. What does it mean? My daughter told me she done her homework. Does that mean conclusively that she done her homework? Someone arrested said 'it wasn't me officer'. Does that mean that it wasn't actually him? Only you will know the level of trust that you share in your daughter's honesty so can't answer that.. A response in affirmation doesn't have to be yes to mean yes, if the response was negative then the person asking would seek to clarify.. again you know that full well.. Language is more nuanced.. " As is indeed the topic - I’d expect 99% of people to condemn the hamas attacks, and a good chunk of them would have more to add to the conversation as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Based on their words mate. It's not a hard concept to understand. I've offered a really simple thread here. Again, really easy to understand if you read the OP. It's also not hard to understand that when someone says 'done so already' that actually means they still do, unless of course they have posted otherwise.. You know that to be the case in relation to the question you asked as equally the simplicity is applied countless times a day on multitudes of subjects.. There's been some emotional input on all sides of the discussion post the 7th October, it's a fucking awful situation for those who were and are innocents caught up in it.. By all means call out anyone who has expressed support for Hamas and in my experience on here that will be rightly supported and those views condemned by the vast majority regardless of whatever political viewpoint.. 'Done so already' does not actually mean someone has done so. It's gonna be very difficult for anyone to prove either way. Hence the thread. What does it mean? My daughter told me she done her homework. Does that mean conclusively that she done her homework? Someone arrested said 'it wasn't me officer'. Does that mean that it wasn't actually him? Only you will know the level of trust that you share in your daughter's honesty so can't answer that.. A response in affirmation doesn't have to be yes to mean yes, if the response was negative then the person asking would seek to clarify.. again you know that full well.. Language is more nuanced.. " Teenagers lie. It doesn't have to be my daughter. Criminals also lie, I offered that one for you because I knew you'd say something about trust. I can offer a hundred more if you like. What I see is word gymnastics from people who won't say it. Clearly I'm not the only person who has seen people refuse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Based on their words mate. It's not a hard concept to understand. I've offered a really simple thread here. Again, really easy to understand if you read the OP. It's also not hard to understand that when someone says 'done so already' that actually means they still do, unless of course they have posted otherwise.. You know that to be the case in relation to the question you asked as equally the simplicity is applied countless times a day on multitudes of subjects.. There's been some emotional input on all sides of the discussion post the 7th October, it's a fucking awful situation for those who were and are innocents caught up in it.. By all means call out anyone who has expressed support for Hamas and in my experience on here that will be rightly supported and those views condemned by the vast majority regardless of whatever political viewpoint.. 'Done so already' does not actually mean someone has done so. It's gonna be very difficult for anyone to prove either way. Hence the thread. What does it mean? My daughter told me she done her homework. Does that mean conclusively that she done her homework? Someone arrested said 'it wasn't me officer'. Does that mean that it wasn't actually him? Only you will know the level of trust that you share in your daughter's honesty so can't answer that.. A response in affirmation doesn't have to be yes to mean yes, if the response was negative then the person asking would seek to clarify.. again you know that full well.. Language is more nuanced.. Teenagers lie. It doesn't have to be my daughter. Criminals also lie, I offered that one for you because I knew you'd say something about trust. I can offer a hundred more if you like. What I see is word gymnastics from people who won't say it. Clearly I'm not the only person who has seen people refuse. " Done so before.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Clearly I'm not the only person who has seen people refuse. " But that’s the point. I think you are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Clearly I'm not the only person who has seen people refuse. But that’s the point. I think you are." I'm not the only person in this thread, let alone wider society. You love X, go see the discussion I mentioned earlier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it." That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it." No, but there’s no reason to not condemn it. Just as there’s no reason to not condemn Israel attacks killing civilians | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it?" Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a new question for the OP (Feisty)... Do you condemn Israeli bombs killing Palestinian children. YES/NO? Start a thread
Answer the question. Surely it is a simple YES/NO right?
The whole point in this thread is so that we can avoid... yeah but...
Start a thread. I'll say no more about it on this one. "So that was me demonstrating that a simple yes/no answer is rarely possible. I don’t want to start a thread in that vein as it is pointless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a new question for the OP (Feisty)... Do you condemn Israeli bombs killing Palestinian children. YES/NO? Start a thread
Answer the question. Surely it is a simple YES/NO right?
The whole point in this thread is so that we can avoid... yeah but...
Start a thread. I'll say no more about it on this one.
So that was me demonstrating that a simple yes/no answer is rarely possible. I don’t want to start a thread in that vein as it is pointless."I'm willing to answer if you or anyone else starts a thread. It is a simple answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? " The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So a new question for the OP (Feisty)... Do you condemn Israeli bombs killing Palestinian children. YES/NO? Start a thread
Answer the question. Surely it is a simple YES/NO right?
The whole point in this thread is so that we can avoid... yeah but...
Start a thread. I'll say no more about it on this one.
So that was me demonstrating that a simple yes/no answer is rarely possible. I don’t want to start a thread in that vein as it is pointless.
I'm willing to answer if you or anyone else starts a thread. It is a simple answer. "You could just answer here so never mind. I don’t see the point. I have made my stance clear in this and many other threads. I condemn actions that result in innocent people being killed, especially children, per se regardless of who does it. Hamas are cowardly scum that should be wiped out but as they are using innocent civilians as shields, bombing and artillery is not the way. Boots on the ground. House-to-house. Dig up the tunnels. Hunt them down with IDF troops. Minimise civilian casualties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? " For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. " Fair enough. A very clear position, to which one is entitled. It is an abstention, believing that the action is justified, stopping short of encouragement. A belief in the cause, with no comment on the method. So not technically "support". Would you maintain the same distance in terms of Israel's retaliation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. " Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause." Actually, it was an interesting response. It highlights how a belief in the underlying cause colours our views of the action. We are all, after all, human. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. " Sorry we can and should condemn their actions, yes we can look at the history of the region and how that's affected those therein and whilst we can emphasise with those in that situation there are lines that must be drawn.. By all means they if they feel justified to do so will take action against the state and that will be the military etc what occured on the 7th crossed many lines and hence there's a response.. Yes we can also say the response has caused innocent casualties and that's wrong but no way does any cause justify the actions that Hamas did .. The same way the bombs on the underground and the bus here didn't and flying planes into the towers also didn't.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You mean the people who haven’t replied to the thread? Maybe they’re at work or something. " Or shopping in Tesco, which if memory serves Was started by Jack Cohen so maybe I shouldn’t be giving them my money 
Anyway, yep I condemn Hamas for the attacks of 7th October. There you go.
I also condemn Israel for not staying in their fcking territory & stealing land backed up by the IDF & their guns.
I condemn Israel for treating Palestinians like an inferior race.
I condemn the USA which for other reasons than the security of Israel (no matter what Israel think) pretty much support & bankroll Israel.
I condemn all the Muslim countries around the area, Egypt, Iran, Syria, Jordan etc. For their chickenshit responses.
I condemn Palestinians themselves as let’s be fair 3,000,000 should be able to take out 20-30,000 armed or not, but then look at my other points, maybe they thought “Fck it, Let them get on with it!”.
& I condemn every single person who every time I point out historical facts proving beyond doubt the real experts in murder & intimidation are the Israeli nation goes silent & also goes silent when you point out the bombing is having little effect on Hamas numbers, just really civilians & they pass no comment or poo poo what is blatantly obvious to the rest of humanity.
But for this obvious, stupidly simple black/white question in a world of grey issue.
I condemn Hamas.
S
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. Fair enough. A very clear position, to which one is entitled. It is an abstention, believing that the action is justified, stopping short of encouragement. A belief in the cause, with no comment on the method. So not technically "support". Would you maintain the same distance in terms of Israel's retaliation?" No. I think it is different when you are talking about a state, with an army. This is different than a people under oppression. When you are looking at the state who has dispossessed land etc etc. It is not the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Right then... So Feisty what has been achieved by this thread?" The thread is only half way through, my attempt was to show those who think everyone condemns Hamas are wrong. We've had some use word gymnastics, and we've had one who refuses to condemn. You may think the thread has been pointless, I think it's proven my thoughts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause." Did you vocally oppose actions of the ANC in South Africa when they were fighting apartheid if civilians were killed? Would you have condemned actions of, say, the French Resistance during WW2 if civilians were killed? Not to say they are the same situation, but the context of the situation is important. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause. Did you vocally oppose actions of the ANC in South Africa when they were fighting apartheid if civilians were killed? Would you have condemned actions of, say, the French Resistance during WW2 if civilians were killed? Not to say they are the same situation, but the context of the situation is important." Completely different to Hamas who purposely targeted civilians. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause. Did you vocally oppose actions of the ANC in South Africa when they were fighting apartheid if civilians were killed? Would you have condemned actions of, say, the French Resistance during WW2 if civilians were killed? Not to say they are the same situation, but the context of the situation is important. Completely different to Hamas who purposely targeted civilians." In the way that Israel are now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause. Did you vocally oppose actions of the ANC in South Africa when they were fighting apartheid if civilians were killed? Would you have condemned actions of, say, the French Resistance during WW2 if civilians were killed? Not to say they are the same situation, but the context of the situation is important. Completely different to Hamas who purposely targeted civilians. In the way that Israel are now." You were asking if people were in vocal opposition to ANC and French Revolution fighters. Hamss are different to those groups. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Completely different to Hamas who purposely targeted civilians. In the way that Israel are now." quote] Actually, in a different way. Less r.apey, and with a military objective in mind, as opposed to inflicting as much damage as possible. What is fascinating is that you can say "then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics" about r.ape, torture and burning. It's a valid position to hold, it's just fascinating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause. Did you vocally oppose actions of the ANC in South Africa when they were fighting apartheid if civilians were killed? Would you have condemned actions of, say, the French Resistance during WW2 if civilians were killed? Not to say they are the same situation, but the context of the situation is important. Completely different to Hamas who purposely targeted civilians." I was under the impression the IDF lost about 150 on Saturday? Like local security type groups. Let’s be honest there’s no way on earth there’d be no IDF at all in the area, who would stop the Palestinians just walking out? S | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause. Did you vocally oppose actions of the ANC in South Africa when they were fighting apartheid if civilians were killed? Would you have condemned actions of, say, the French Resistance during WW2 if civilians were killed? Not to say they are the same situation, but the context of the situation is important. Completely different to Hamas who purposely targeted civilians. I was under the impression the IDF lost about 150 on Saturday? Like local security type groups. Let’s be honest there’s no way on earth there’d be no IDF at all in the area, who would stop the Palestinians just walking out? S" On Saturday? We have been speaking about Oct 7th. The day Hamas targeted civilians, purposely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause. Did you vocally oppose actions of the ANC in South Africa when they were fighting apartheid if civilians were killed? Would you have condemned actions of, say, the French Resistance during WW2 if civilians were killed? Not to say they are the same situation, but the context of the situation is important. Completely different to Hamas who purposely targeted civilians. I was under the impression the IDF lost about 150 on Saturday? Like local security type groups. Let’s be honest there’s no way on earth there’d be no IDF at all in the area, who would stop the Palestinians just walking out? S On Saturday? We have been speaking about Oct 7th. The day Hamas targeted civilians, purposely. " We know that the IDF target civilians, purposely, too. Do you condemn them also? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause. Did you vocally oppose actions of the ANC in South Africa when they were fighting apartheid if civilians were killed? Would you have condemned actions of, say, the French Resistance during WW2 if civilians were killed? Not to say they are the same situation, but the context of the situation is important. Completely different to Hamas who purposely targeted civilians. I was under the impression the IDF lost about 150 on Saturday? Like local security type groups. Let’s be honest there’s no way on earth there’d be no IDF at all in the area, who would stop the Palestinians just walking out? S On Saturday? We have been speaking about Oct 7th. The day Hamas targeted civilians, purposely. We know that the IDF target civilians, purposely, too. Do you condemn them also?" Fuck me mate, how many times do you wanna move the goalposts? As I've already said, I'll answer any questions re. Israel on any Israel thread should someone wanna start one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I am sure Israel does what it can to minimise the deaths, I’m not so sure, but hey ho. Yes, they do, but hamas are hiding among civilians, it is a strategy they have, even the hamas officials are admitting it. I agree, they are. In which case, bombing isn’t the answer.That is right. I reckon that hamas should face them right on instead of hiding. I think that the outcome might have been differently then. I think that the reason they do it is because they know that israel is more equipped than them to win. Yes, I don’t think Hamas are stupid. So we agree that Israel bombing Palestine isn’t the answer? And that maybe boots on the ground targeting Hamas directly would be a better way of dealing with the situation? Maybe offering an olive branch to Palestinians who want safety and don’t support Hamas?" It is tricky one too, you could also wonder why egypt wont open their doors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We know that the IDF target civilians, purposely, too. Do you condemn them also?" Do we really know that? In the literal sense, as in purposely and specifically sets out to kill civilians in the absence of a perceived military presence or installation? Please share what and how we know. Really - it's a serious question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We know that the IDF target civilians, purposely, too. Do you condemn them also? Do we really know that? In the literal sense, as in purposely and specifically sets out to kill civilians in the absence of a perceived military presence or installation? Please share what and how we know. Really - it's a serious question." Like the times they have shelled weddings. Or the times they've bombed ambulances. Or the time they shelled 4 children playing football on the beach. Or the times they target schools. Or the times they target refugee camps. Can you do any of those things without intending to kill civilians? If they thought a terrorist was under a school in Tel Aviv, would they bomb the school? Or are they happy to kill Palestinian children? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause. Did you vocally oppose actions of the ANC in South Africa when they were fighting apartheid if civilians were killed? Would you have condemned actions of, say, the French Resistance during WW2 if civilians were killed? Not to say they are the same situation, but the context of the situation is important. Completely different to Hamas who purposely targeted civilians. I was under the impression the IDF lost about 150 on Saturday? Like local security type groups. Let’s be honest there’s no way on earth there’d be no IDF at all in the area, who would stop the Palestinians just walking out? S On Saturday? We have been speaking about Oct 7th. The day Hamas targeted civilians, purposely. " Sorry, should have been clearer, on Saturday October 7th into Sunday 8th the IDF lost approx 100-150. One would assume local units in charge of gate duties, the observation towers & those possibly barracked in the local close enough to the wall. From memory it was 26 named soldiers on Israeli tv by early Saturday evening & pretty sure it ended up around the 100 mark for Saturday once the dust settled. Saying there were no IDF there at all Defies all logic as without them Palestinians could just walk out willy nilly. No need to break out. Just heard Biden may be in trouble as in a NY poll 60% of under 30’s think America should BOT be giving Israel military assistance. It’s all kicking off in more ways than one. S | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not condemning the attack is not the same as supporting it. That might be the true, but it begs a follow-up question: for what reason do you not condemn it? Yes it does. But is the logic held to on both sides? Do people also have to condemn Israeli attacks in order to not support the killing of 4000 children? The logic holds true on both sides, yes. So: for what reason might you not condemn it? For the same reason that people would not have condemned tactics or attacks carried out by the likes of the ANC, Mandela or other groups fighting against apartheid in South Africa. For some, when a people are under a brutal occupation or an apartheid system like we see in Israel, then it's not for us to say how they can defend themselves, or fight back, no matter whether we personally disapprove of any specific tactics. Most normal people would condem any attack specifically targeted at civilians. What ever the cause. Did you vocally oppose actions of the ANC in South Africa when they were fighting apartheid if civilians were killed? Would you have condemned actions of, say, the French Resistance during WW2 if civilians were killed? Not to say they are the same situation, but the context of the situation is important. Completely different to Hamas who purposely targeted civilians. I was under the impression the IDF lost about 150 on Saturday? Like local security type groups. Let’s be honest there’s no way on earth there’d be no IDF at all in the area, who would stop the Palestinians just walking out? S On Saturday? We have been speaking about Oct 7th. The day Hamas targeted civilians, purposely. Sorry, should have been clearer, on Saturday October 7th into Sunday 8th the IDF lost approx 100-150. One would assume local units in charge of gate duties, the observation towers & those possibly barracked in the local close enough to the wall. From memory it was 26 named soldiers on Israeli tv by early Saturday evening & pretty sure it ended up around the 100 mark for Saturday once the dust settled. Saying there were no IDF there at all Defies all logic as without them Palestinians could just walk out willy nilly. No need to break out. Just heard Biden may be in trouble as in a NY poll 60% of under 30’s think America should BOT be giving Israel military assistance. It’s all kicking off in more ways than one. S" I didn't say there were no IDF killed on that day. You made that bit up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We know that the IDF target civilians, purposely, too. Do you condemn them also? Do we really know that? In the literal sense, as in purposely and specifically sets out to kill civilians in the absence of a perceived military presence or installation? Please share what and how we know. Really - it's a serious question. Like the times they have shelled weddings. Or the times they've bombed ambulances. Or the time they shelled 4 children playing football on the beach. Or the times they target schools. Or the times they target refugee camps. Can you do any of those things without intending to kill civilians? If they thought a terrorist was under a school in Tel Aviv, would they bomb the school? Or are they happy to kill Palestinian children?" & obviously any terrorist cell underneath the school would only be there between the hours of 9-4pm they wouldn’t be there when the school was closed
S | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We know that the IDF target civilians, purposely, too. Do you condemn them also? Do we really know that? In the literal sense, as in purposely and specifically sets out to kill civilians in the absence of a perceived military presence or installation? Please share what and how we know. Really - it's a serious question. Like the times they have shelled weddings. Or the times they've bombed ambulances. Or the time they shelled 4 children playing football on the beach. Or the times they target schools. Or the times they target refugee camps. Can you do any of those things without intending to kill civilians? If they thought a terrorist was under a school in Tel Aviv, would they bomb the school? Or are they happy to kill Palestinian children?" Knowledge of what the IDF bombed is not an answer to of why they are bombed, whether there were mistakes or factors of which we are not aware. Now, the IDF might have made a mistake, which is horrific and for which they must be held accountable. They might have bombed ambulances being used as cover for terrorists. They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective (after some manner of warning). In none of these scenarios are the IDF "targeting civilians". Knowing that you are going to kill civilians in an otherwise legitimate military activity is not, in and of itself, targeting. If we cannot agree on this, then we're speaking different languages. They might have indeed done worse than this, which is a belief people are entitled to hold, but there is no objective evidence for this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here we are, a nice easy thread. Condemn the Hamas attack on Oct 7th. Nothing more. I condemn." Yes I totally condemn it and can do so without mentioning anything else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective" According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime." No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"K"nowing that you are going to kill civilians in an otherwise legitimate military activity is not, in and of itself, targeting." Yes, but it is a war crime if you don't reasonably try to protect civilians. They clearly aren't doing this as 40% of the deaths in Gaza have been children. If you include women, I believe this figure rises to 63%." Wrong. There's that "war crime" term again. Let's skip straight to the theoretical bombing of a hospital, as a prime example. Let's look at the Geneva convention (courtesy of the Red Cross): https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-13#:~:text=%E4%B8%AD%E6%96%87-,Article%2013%20%2D%20Discontinuance%20of%20protection%20of%20civilian%20medical%20units,acts%20harmful%20to%20the%20enemy. Article 13 - Discontinuance of protection of civilian medical units "The protection to which civilian medical units are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded." You can quibble over reasonable time limits, but Israel could bomb a hospital full of civilians, provided that it is actually a military target and that appropriate warning had been given, without committing a war crime. Have they? No. Would they? Perhaps. Would it be despicable, atrocious and probably counterproductive? Probably. War crime? No. Contrast Hamas, with regard to the following article: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-12 "Under no circumstances shall medical units be used in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack. Whenever possible, the Parties to the conflict shall ensure that medical units are so sited that attacks against military objectives do not imperil their safety." In light of the above, is Hamas committing war crimes? Yes. Against their own civilians? Yes. "This is not targeting combatants. Its an attempt to destroy a community. " You are entitled to your conjecture. However, Israel has a much easier path to destruction, should they really want that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. " Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. " You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. " Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam." If you choose to trust someone more than reading the convention with your own eyes then that's your problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. If you choose to trust someone more than reading the convention with your own eyes then that's your problem. " I trust the ICC prosecutor who believes that war crimes have potentially been committed by both Hamas and Israel. I suspect he knows more on the topic than you or I as well, you’d agree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We know that the IDF target civilians, purposely, too. Do you condemn them also? Do we really know that? In the literal sense, as in purposely and specifically sets out to kill civilians in the absence of a perceived military presence or installation? Please share what and how we know. Really - it's a serious question. Like the times they have shelled weddings. Or the times they've bombed ambulances. Or the time they shelled 4 children playing football on the beach. Or the times they target schools. Or the times they target refugee camps. Can you do any of those things without intending to kill civilians? If they thought a terrorist was under a school in Tel Aviv, would they bomb the school? Or are they happy to kill Palestinian children? Knowledge of what the IDF bombed is not an answer to of why they are bombed, whether there were mistakes or factors of which we are not aware. Now, the IDF might have made a mistake, which is horrific and for which they must be held accountable. They might have bombed ambulances being used as cover for terrorists. They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective (after some manner of warning). In none of these scenarios are the IDF "targeting civilians". Knowing that you are going to kill civilians in an otherwise legitimate military activity is not, in and of itself, targeting. If we cannot agree on this, then we're speaking different languages. They might have indeed done worse than this, which is a belief people are entitled to hold, but there is no objective evidence for this." I’d go with that but it’s all about how much “collateral damage” the rest of the world will tolerate without forming a more negative view of Israel. America is already beginning to turn on Biden. “We had legitimate targets but can confirm to kill a 100 of them we had to kill 50 civilians” might pass muster with the Joe Average, it’s war after all. “We had legitimate targets but cannot confirm if we killed any of them & our bombs killed 50 civilians”. Will not. Now times that by a factor of over 200 & Israel has no prayer imo of getting anyone who is impartial to take their viewpoint & their words of “We have to do this” with any seriousness at all. The “Collateral damage” will not just be the Gazan Palestinian it will be the state of Israel’s standing in the world for years to come & in the safety of her people across all corners of the world. One wonders whether that alone is too high a price to pay. S | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. If you choose to trust someone more than reading the convention with your own eyes then that's your problem. I trust the ICC prosecutor who believes that war crimes have potentially been committed by both Hamas and Israel. I suspect he knows more on the topic than you or I as well, you’d agree?" You said: this is a war crime Now you say: he believes a war crime has potentially been committed. See the difference? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. If you choose to trust someone more than reading the convention with your own eyes then that's your problem. " Are you sure you read it correctly? Because earlier you claimed that people were refusing to condemn Hamas despite reading all evidence to the contrary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. If you choose to trust someone more than reading the convention with your own eyes then that's your problem. Are you sure you read it correctly? Because earlier you claimed that people were refusing to condemn Hamas despite reading all evidence to the contrary." I think you'll find you're the one struggling to read bud. I've already stated we had 2 people using word gymnastics and 1 person refuse. I would tell you to read back but perhaps you're incapable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. If you choose to trust someone more than reading the convention with your own eyes then that's your problem. I trust the ICC prosecutor who believes that war crimes have potentially been committed by both Hamas and Israel. I suspect he knows more on the topic than you or I as well, you’d agree? You said: this is a war crime Now you say: he believes a war crime has potentially been committed. See the difference?" I said ‘according to the ICC statute’ - which was a copy/paste quote from an article, as it happens. I then looked further and read the piece from the prosecutor - he can’t say yay or nay for certain because no investigation has taken place yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. If you choose to trust someone more than reading the convention with your own eyes then that's your problem. Are you sure you read it correctly? Because earlier you claimed that people were refusing to condemn Hamas despite reading all evidence to the contrary. I think you'll find you're the one struggling to read bud. I've already stated we had 2 people using word gymnastics and 1 person refuse. I would tell you to read back but perhaps you're incapable?" ‘Word gymnastics’ = ‘I didn’t like the way they said the thing they did’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. If you choose to trust someone more than reading the convention with your own eyes then that's your problem. I trust the ICC prosecutor who believes that war crimes have potentially been committed by both Hamas and Israel. I suspect he knows more on the topic than you or I as well, you’d agree? You said: this is a war crime Now you say: he believes a war crime has potentially been committed. See the difference? I said ‘according to the ICC statute’ - which was a copy/paste quote from an article, as it happens. I then looked further and read the piece from the prosecutor - he can’t say yay or nay for certain because no investigation has taken place yet. " You should learn to use quotation marks if you're quoting. Now wanna keep arguing that a war crime has been committed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. If you choose to trust someone more than reading the convention with your own eyes then that's your problem. I trust the ICC prosecutor who believes that war crimes have potentially been committed by both Hamas and Israel. I suspect he knows more on the topic than you or I as well, you’d agree? You said: this is a war crime Now you say: he believes a war crime has potentially been committed. See the difference? I said ‘according to the ICC statute’ - which was a copy/paste quote from an article, as it happens. I then looked further and read the piece from the prosecutor - he can’t say yay or nay for certain because no investigation has taken place yet. You should learn to use quotation marks if you're quoting. Now wanna keep arguing that a war crime has been committed?" I’ll leave that to the experts, people like MSF who deal with this stuff every day, thanks. I value their opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective" Yes, it was hamas who did that, it was interesting to see how all the media made it to look like it was israel that did it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes the hamas attacks have sadly started another full engagement. They should hand back the hostages and peace can resume. " ‘Peace’ hasn’t existed in the region in living memory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam." Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas." I’m glad to see you’ve removed your flag photo. Shame your bias is still so overt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes the hamas attacks have sadly started another full engagement. They should hand back the hostages and peace can resume. ‘Peace’ hasn’t existed in the region in living memory. " Between gaza strip /palestine and Israel there have been intermittent peace agreements I am afraid to say. So yes. Hand back the hostages and peace can resume | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas. I’m glad to see you’ve removed your flag photo. Shame your bias is still so overt." Why are you glad they removed the Israeli flag as the profile picture? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objectiveYes, it was hamas who did that, it was interesting to see how all the media made it to look like it was israel that did it." What about the Rantisi children’s hospital? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas. I’m glad to see you’ve removed your flag photo. Shame your bias is still so overt. Why are you glad they removed the Israeli flag as the profile picture?" Because I don’t think it’s wise to parade a flag of either side in this horrendous conflict. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes the hamas attacks have sadly started another full engagement. They should hand back the hostages and peace can resume. ‘Peace’ hasn’t existed in the region in living memory. Between gaza strip /palestine and Israel there have been intermittent peace agreements I am afraid to say. So yes. Hand back the hostages and peace can resume" Research annual death tolls and find me the last time one said ‘0’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas. I’m glad to see you’ve removed your flag photo. Shame your bias is still so overt. Why are you glad they removed the Israeli flag as the profile picture? Because I don’t think it’s wise to parade a flag of either side in this horrendous conflict. " What do you think of the Palestinian flags around the cities of the UK? Should or shouldn't be allowed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas." If someone spoke of Israel, the IDF and Judaism in the same terms as you speak of Palestine, Hamas and Islam. They would rightly be condemned for their hate speech. However it seems to be cool your way around. Sad times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas. I’m glad to see you’ve removed your flag photo. Shame your bias is still so overt. Why are you glad they removed the Israeli flag as the profile picture? Because I don’t think it’s wise to parade a flag of either side in this horrendous conflict. What do you think of the Palestinian flags around the cities of the UK? Should or shouldn't be allowed?" During conflict? I’d prefer not. Palestine does not equal Hamas, but the two are easily conflated as we’ve seen on here repeatedly (by accident or design) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas. If someone spoke of Israel, the IDF and Judaism in the same terms as you speak of Palestine, Hamas and Islam. They would rightly be condemned for their hate speech. However it seems to be cool your way around. Sad times. " Don’t accuse them of bias ffs. They’ll come for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes the hamas attacks have sadly started another full engagement. They should hand back the hostages and peace can resume. ‘Peace’ hasn’t existed in the region in living memory. Between gaza strip /palestine and Israel there have been intermittent peace agreements I am afraid to say. So yes. Hand back the hostages and peace can resume Research annual death tolls and find me the last time one said ‘0’" By your logic then. Any time a terrorist organisation strikes peace doesn't exist and thus the e.u has never been a beacon kf peace and peace and the good Friday agreement were pointless as there has been attacks every year So now any point on ireland and brexit is moot and we should just bin off the Windsor protocol. Top logic | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas. If someone spoke of Israel, the IDF and Judaism in the same terms as you speak of Palestine, Hamas and Islam. They would rightly be condemned for their hate speech. However it seems to be cool your way around. Sad times. " Ah! I wondered when you'd try the old race baiting again. This is the third time you've done this in the past couple of weeks and it's getting so boring and predictable. You've been called out by other posters for doing this. It's not a good look. Do better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas. I’m glad to see you’ve removed your flag photo. Shame your bias is still so overt. Why are you glad they removed the Israeli flag as the profile picture? Because I don’t think it’s wise to parade a flag of either side in this horrendous conflict. What do you think of the Palestinian flags around the cities of the UK? Should or shouldn't be allowed? During conflict? I’d prefer not. Palestine does not equal Hamas, but the two are easily conflated as we’ve seen on here repeatedly (by accident or design)" You have said you are glad a person removed an Israeli flag as their profile picture, because you don't think it is wise to parade a flag of either side. When asked about the Palestinian flags being paraded around the cities of the UK, you respond I'd prefer not? Palestine doesn't equal Hamas, which I take you mean the flag is not representative of Hamas, what does an Israeli flag mean to you then? this the second time you have made a comment about someone with an Israeli flag as their profile picture. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes the hamas attacks have sadly started another full engagement. They should hand back the hostages and peace can resume. ‘Peace’ hasn’t existed in the region in living memory. Between gaza strip /palestine and Israel there have been intermittent peace agreements I am afraid to say. So yes. Hand back the hostages and peace can resume Research annual death tolls and find me the last time one said ‘0’ By your logic then. Any time a terrorist organisation strikes peace doesn't exist and thus the e.u has never been a beacon kf peace and peace and the good Friday agreement were pointless as there has been attacks every year So now any point on ireland and brexit is moot and we should just bin off the Windsor protocol. Top logic You’ve often written some shite on here Morley, but this is top quality stuff. Funny as hell. Kudos to you. Not on a par with the Nazis being socialists, but pretty good" It's your logic that. Because deaths occurred or because some groups carry on the fight. Peace was never signed between nations. So then Germany still is nazi and at war with the uk. And Ireland and the uk are still in the troubles. Because of clashes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using that logic. Every year a neo nazi kills some one. Therefore naziism in Germany is still rife and peace was never reached between any nations? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/09/german-woman-on-trial-for-neo-nazi-murders-breaks-silence-over-attacks" I could explain it to you, but you’d undoubtedly fail to understand and swan off pretending you’re right anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes the hamas attacks have sadly started another full engagement. They should hand back the hostages and peace can resume. ‘Peace’ hasn’t existed in the region in living memory. Between gaza strip /palestine and Israel there have been intermittent peace agreements I am afraid to say. So yes. Hand back the hostages and peace can resume Research annual death tolls and find me the last time one said ‘0’ By your logic then. Any time a terrorist organisation strikes peace doesn't exist and thus the e.u has never been a beacon kf peace and peace and the good Friday agreement were pointless as there has been attacks every year So now any point on ireland and brexit is moot and we should just bin off the Windsor protocol. Top logic You’ve often written some shite on here Morley, but this is top quality stuff. Funny as hell. Kudos to you. Not on a par with the Nazis being socialists, but pretty goodIt's your logic that. Because deaths occurred or because some groups carry on the fight. Peace was never signed between nations. So then Germany still is nazi and at war with the uk. And Ireland and the uk are still in the troubles. Because of clashes. " Your stance reveals your binary thinking - you believe that the absence of a state of war = peace. And that’s why you’re wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using that logic. Every year a neo nazi kills some one. Therefore naziism in Germany is still rife and peace was never reached between any nations? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/09/german-woman-on-trial-for-neo-nazi-murders-breaks-silence-over-attacks I could explain it to you, but you’d undoubtedly fail to understand and swan off pretending you’re right anyway. " I doubt you're explaining amything to any 1 pal. You'll just resort to " Google it yourself" when caught out. Just like your logic is caught out again now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using that logic. Every year a neo nazi kills some one. Therefore naziism in Germany is still rife and peace was never reached between any nations? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/09/german-woman-on-trial-for-neo-nazi-murders-breaks-silence-over-attacks I could explain it to you, but you’d undoubtedly fail to understand and swan off pretending you’re right anyway. I doubt you're explaining amything to any 1 pal. You'll just resort to " Google it yourself" when caught out. Just like your logic is caught out again now. " Already told you, you’re not my Pal. And I’ve explained above. The problem is your inability to comprehend nuance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes the hamas attacks have sadly started another full engagement. They should hand back the hostages and peace can resume. ‘Peace’ hasn’t existed in the region in living memory. Between gaza strip /palestine and Israel there have been intermittent peace agreements I am afraid to say. So yes. Hand back the hostages and peace can resume Research annual death tolls and find me the last time one said ‘0’ By your logic then. Any time a terrorist organisation strikes peace doesn't exist and thus the e.u has never been a beacon kf peace and peace and the good Friday agreement were pointless as there has been attacks every year So now any point on ireland and brexit is moot and we should just bin off the Windsor protocol. Top logic You’ve often written some shite on here Morley, but this is top quality stuff. Funny as hell. Kudos to you. Not on a par with the Nazis being socialists, but pretty goodIt's your logic that. Because deaths occurred or because some groups carry on the fight. Peace was never signed between nations. So then Germany still is nazi and at war with the uk. And Ireland and the uk are still in the troubles. Because of clashes. Your stance reveals your binary thinking - you believe that the absence of a state of war = peace. And that’s why you’re wrong." So then your logic is no nation is ever at peace as long a sindividuals in that nation attack other countries. 1 person can defeat an entire peace process. Well there we have it... you logic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using that logic. Every year a neo nazi kills some one. Therefore naziism in Germany is still rife and peace was never reached between any nations? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/09/german-woman-on-trial-for-neo-nazi-murders-breaks-silence-over-attacks I could explain it to you, but you’d undoubtedly fail to understand and swan off pretending you’re right anyway. I doubt you're explaining amything to any 1 pal. You'll just resort to " Google it yourself" when caught out. Just like your logic is caught out again now. Already told you, you’re not my Pal. And I’ve explained above. The problem is your inability to comprehend nuance." There's no nuance. Your inference is any death/attack means no peace. That's was the stall you wet out. I am simply highlighting the absurdity of the logic for all to see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using that logic. Every year a neo nazi kills some one. Therefore naziism in Germany is still rife and peace was never reached between any nations? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/09/german-woman-on-trial-for-neo-nazi-murders-breaks-silence-over-attacks I could explain it to you, but you’d undoubtedly fail to understand and swan off pretending you’re right anyway. I doubt you're explaining amything to any 1 pal. You'll just resort to " Google it yourself" when caught out. Just like your logic is caught out again now. Already told you, you’re not my Pal. And I’ve explained above. The problem is your inability to comprehend nuance. There's no nuance. Your inference is any death/attack means no peace. That's was the stall you wet out. I am simply highlighting the absurdity of the logic for all to see" We can all see the absurdity of the logic, except those who are blinded by false ideology and faux empathy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas. If someone spoke of Israel, the IDF and Judaism in the same terms as you speak of Palestine, Hamas and Islam. They would rightly be condemned for their hate speech. However it seems to be cool your way around. Sad times. Ah! I wondered when you'd try the old race baiting again. This is the third time you've done this in the past couple of weeks and it's getting so boring and predictable. You've been called out by other posters for doing this. It's not a good look. Do better." Race baiting? No clue what you're on about. No one mentioned race. I pointed out how hateful your post was. And how if it was directed the other direction, it would be unacceptable. My post was straight forward. If you disagree with it, feel free to talk about that. Otherwise leave the personal attacks out of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Using that logic. Every year a neo nazi kills some one. Therefore naziism in Germany is still rife and peace was never reached between any nations? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/09/german-woman-on-trial-for-neo-nazi-murders-breaks-silence-over-attacks I could explain it to you, but you’d undoubtedly fail to understand and swan off pretending you’re right anyway. I doubt you're explaining amything to any 1 pal. You'll just resort to " Google it yourself" when caught out. Just like your logic is caught out again now. Already told you, you’re not my Pal. And I’ve explained above. The problem is your inability to comprehend nuance. There's no nuance. Your inference is any death/attack means no peace. That's was the stall you wet out. I am simply highlighting the absurdity of the logic for all to see We can all see the absurdity of the logic, except those who are blinded by false ideology and faux empathy." Intentionally ironic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread in theory should have been about 20 posts, depending on the amount of individuals taking part. Why is it so high?" Why do you think it's so high? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" They might have bombed hospitals on purpose, knowing that innocent civilians were present, making the judgement call that "it was worth it" to get to a military objective According to the ICC statute, this is a war crime. No it isn't. Providing they gave a warning first. Nope. Not according to ICC. If, however the hospital was being used as cover for military activity it could be exempted, but the attack must still remain proportional to the threat presented. MSF believe it was a war crime and it should be investigated. They probably know better than the fabswingers forum. You've just been given the article above. You really don't wanna double down on this one. Once again, I trust MSF more than the fabswingers crowd. No disrespect, but we’ve already seen a thread full of people who can’t tell the difference between Hamas, Palestine and Islam. Really? It's very easy to tell the difference between these three. Hamas are Palestinian citizens who are muslim and they brutally slaughter Jewish children, women and men without warning. Palestine is the country that Palestinian citizens who joined Hamas live in. It is a muslim country under voted-for sharia law. Islam is the religion responsible for the concept of sharia law that Palestinians who joined Hamas worship. They believe in subjugation of women, torture and murder of LGBTQ+ folk and the destruction of Israel, amongst other things. They are obviously very different from each other. Does that clear it up for everyone? Jolly good. And yes, I condemn the attack on Oct 7th on Israel by the Palestinian citizens who call themselves Hamas. If someone spoke of Israel, the IDF and Judaism in the same terms as you speak of Palestine, Hamas and Islam. They would rightly be condemned for their hate speech. However it seems to be cool your way around. Sad times. Ah! I wondered when you'd try the old race baiting again. This is the third time you've done this in the past couple of weeks and it's getting so boring and predictable. You've been called out by other posters for doing this. It's not a good look. Do better. Race baiting? No clue what you're on about. No one mentioned race. I pointed out how hateful your post was. And how if it was directed the other direction, it would be unacceptable. My post was straight forward. If you disagree with it, feel free to talk about that. Otherwise leave the personal attacks out of it. " Everything I said in my post is true. If you think that the truth constitutes "hate", you have a genuine problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who doesn't? Hamas have always been a terrorist organisation will a clear objective to hand all of Palestine to the people they regard the land belongs to. However most people can read between the lines and understand such binary questions are rarely about establishing one single isolated fact for pure sake of establishing that isolated fact. They know these binary questions are more about taking a heinous atrocity and removing it from the wider context, complexity and history for the moral promotion of one side and its actions (past and present). However it is easy and right to condemn such vile atrocities as long as your willing to condemn all atrocities, human rights abuses and the flouting/paying lip service to the laws of armed conflict. Plus an understanding of the power dynamics at play. But I think a lot of people find this question indicative of those who cheery pick what they want to see in regards of who are the "goodies" and the "badies". Mr" Have you read the thread. There are people who won't condemn. As regards you're last paragraph, I genuinely couldn't care about who is a 'goodie' or 'baddie'. I do care about the narrative that 'everyone' condemns Hamas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who doesn't? Hamas have always been a terrorist organisation will a clear objective to hand all of Palestine to the people they regard the land belongs to. However most people can read between the lines and understand such binary questions are rarely about establishing one single isolated fact for pure sake of establishing that isolated fact. They know these binary questions are more about taking a heinous atrocity and removing it from the wider context, complexity and history for the moral promotion of one side and its actions (past and present). However it is easy and right to condemn such vile atrocities as long as your willing to condemn all atrocities, human rights abuses and the flouting/paying lip service to the laws of armed conflict. Plus an understanding of the power dynamics at play. But I think a lot of people find this question indicative of those who cheery pick what they want to see in regards of who are the "goodies" and the "badies". Mr Have you read the thread. There are people who won't condemn. As regards you're last paragraph, I genuinely couldn't care about who is a 'goodie' or 'baddie'. I do care about the narrative that 'everyone' condemns Hamas. " Ummm... not convinced you couldn't care less and this question is as face value as you say it is. However I'm not a mind reader, your clearly stating your not getting at something more. But that is definitely my suspicion/gut feeling of which neither of us can prove either way. It's up to others likewise whether they take you at face value or likewise read something more between the lines with this question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who doesn't? Hamas have always been a terrorist organisation will a clear objective to hand all of Palestine to the people they regard the land belongs to. However most people can read between the lines and understand such binary questions are rarely about establishing one single isolated fact for pure sake of establishing that isolated fact. They know these binary questions are more about taking a heinous atrocity and removing it from the wider context, complexity and history for the moral promotion of one side and its actions (past and present). However it is easy and right to condemn such vile atrocities as long as your willing to condemn all atrocities, human rights abuses and the flouting/paying lip service to the laws of armed conflict. Plus an understanding of the power dynamics at play. But I think a lot of people find this question indicative of those who cheery pick what they want to see in regards of who are the "goodies" and the "badies". Mr Have you read the thread. There are people who won't condemn. As regards you're last paragraph, I genuinely couldn't care about who is a 'goodie' or 'baddie'. I do care about the narrative that 'everyone' condemns Hamas. Ummm... not convinced you couldn't care less and this question is as face value as you say it is. However I'm not a mind reader, your clearly stating your not getting at something more. But that is definitely my suspicion/gut feeling of which neither of us can prove either way. It's up to others likewise whether they take you at face value or likewise read something more between the lines with this question." You don't have to be convinced. I genuinely couldn't care less of someone supports Hamas, just don't be hitting me with false narratives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who doesn't? Hamas have always been a terrorist organisation will a clear objective to hand all of Palestine to the people they regard the land belongs to. However most people can read between the lines and understand such binary questions are rarely about establishing one single isolated fact for pure sake of establishing that isolated fact. They know these binary questions are more about taking a heinous atrocity and removing it from the wider context, complexity and history for the moral promotion of one side and its actions (past and present). However it is easy and right to condemn such vile atrocities as long as your willing to condemn all atrocities, human rights abuses and the flouting/paying lip service to the laws of armed conflict. Plus an understanding of the power dynamics at play. But I think a lot of people find this question indicative of those who cheery pick what they want to see in regards of who are the "goodies" and the "badies". Mr Have you read the thread. There are people who won't condemn. As regards you're last paragraph, I genuinely couldn't care about who is a 'goodie' or 'baddie'. I do care about the narrative that 'everyone' condemns Hamas. Ummm... not convinced you couldn't care less and this question is as face value as you say it is. However I'm not a mind reader, your clearly stating your not getting at something more. But that is definitely my suspicion/gut feeling of which neither of us can prove either way. It's up to others likewise whether they take you at face value or likewise read something more between the lines with this question. You don't have to be convinced. I genuinely couldn't care less of someone supports Hamas, just don't be hitting me with false narratives. " That's fine. I've said my bit. You've opened on a public forum and people will respond to how they see the question you've asked. Clearly regardless of if my suspicions are correct or incorrect you'd say the same. Likewise whether you care or not nobody will truly know. I think that's fair to say too objectively. Although one does get the vibe of the Lady doth protest too much. So we could call this to the cows come home. But there's no fruit in that and other people will make their minds up on this point regardless of if you care or genuinly don't. Although I think some would suggest your previous responses would indicate maybe you're more invested in an agender of something that is beyond the pure face value of the question. Anyways just take my take of what is going on here within the boundaries of this conversation space. I wish no hard feelings and you a good evening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who doesn't? Hamas have always been a terrorist organisation will a clear objective to hand all of Palestine to the people they regard the land belongs to. However most people can read between the lines and understand such binary questions are rarely about establishing one single isolated fact for pure sake of establishing that isolated fact. They know these binary questions are more about taking a heinous atrocity and removing it from the wider context, complexity and history for the moral promotion of one side and its actions (past and present). However it is easy and right to condemn such vile atrocities as long as your willing to condemn all atrocities, human rights abuses and the flouting/paying lip service to the laws of armed conflict. Plus an understanding of the power dynamics at play. But I think a lot of people find this question indicative of those who cheery pick what they want to see in regards of who are the "goodies" and the "badies". Mr Have you read the thread. There are people who won't condemn. As regards you're last paragraph, I genuinely couldn't care about who is a 'goodie' or 'baddie'. I do care about the narrative that 'everyone' condemns Hamas. Ummm... not convinced you couldn't care less and this question is as face value as you say it is. However I'm not a mind reader, your clearly stating your not getting at something more. But that is definitely my suspicion/gut feeling of which neither of us can prove either way. It's up to others likewise whether they take you at face value or likewise read something more between the lines with this question. You don't have to be convinced. I genuinely couldn't care less of someone supports Hamas, just don't be hitting me with false narratives. That's fine. I've said my bit. You've opened on a public forum and people will respond to how they see the question you've asked. Clearly regardless of if my suspicions are correct or incorrect you'd say the same. Likewise whether you care or not nobody will truly know. I think that's fair to say too objectively. Although one does get the vibe of the Lady doth protest too much. So we could call this to the cows come home. But there's no fruit in that and other people will make their minds up on this point regardless of if you care or genuinly don't. Although I think some would suggest your previous responses would indicate maybe you're more invested in an agender of something that is beyond the pure face value of the question. Anyways just take my take of what is going on here within the boundaries of this conversation space. I wish no hard feelings and you a good evening." Of course people will respond as they see fit. I don't believe I've tried to shut down any conversation on this. I'm also not protesting, I literally said you don't have to be convinced by my motives. Fucking strange take on my responses. However, you are of course free to believe whatever you want, I won't lose any sleep over it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread in theory should have been about 20 posts, depending on the amount of individuals taking part. Why is it so high? Why do you think it's so high?" Having gone through the thread, the simple can you condemn Hamas, simply yes or no fell on deaf ears and became, I condemn Hamas but… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread in theory should have been about 20 posts, depending on the amount of individuals taking part. Why is it so high? Why do you think it's so high? Having gone through the thread, the simple can you condemn Hamas, simply yes or no fell on deaf ears and became, I condemn Hamas but…" Nailed it. The reason I posed the question the way I did was to avoid that, but this is fab. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread in theory should have been about 20 posts, depending on the amount of individuals taking part. Why is it so high? Why do you think it's so high? Having gone through the thread, the simple can you condemn Hamas, simply yes or no fell on deaf ears and became, I condemn Hamas but… Nailed it. The reason I posed the question the way I did was to avoid that, but this is fab. " what is mind boggling is no one talks about Yemen and Syria. Where is the condemnation there? The body counts there are significantly higher. Israel defends it's homeland and everyone turned into I condemn Hamas But... The "but" is it's trending. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread in theory should have been about 20 posts, depending on the amount of individuals taking part. Why is it so high? Why do you think it's so high? Having gone through the thread, the simple can you condemn Hamas, simply yes or no fell on deaf ears and became, I condemn Hamas but… Nailed it. The reason I posed the question the way I did was to avoid that, but this is fab. what is mind boggling is no one talks about Yemen and Syria. Where is the condemnation there? The body counts there are significantly higher. Israel defends it's homeland and everyone turned into I condemn Hamas But... The "but" is it's trending." Or Sudan, which has been fucking dreadful this weekend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread in theory should have been about 20 posts, depending on the amount of individuals taking part. Why is it so high? Why do you think it's so high? Having gone through the thread, the simple can you condemn Hamas, simply yes or no fell on deaf ears and became, I condemn Hamas but… Nailed it. The reason I posed the question the way I did was to avoid that, but this is fab. what is mind boggling is no one talks about Yemen and Syria. Where is the condemnation there? The body counts there are significantly higher. Israel defends it's homeland and everyone turned into I condemn Hamas But... The "but" is it's trending. Or Sudan, which has been fucking dreadful this weekend. " The only reason it's getting a lot of attention is because it's Jew vs Arab. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread in theory should have been about 20 posts, depending on the amount of individuals taking part. Why is it so high? Why do you think it's so high? Having gone through the thread, the simple can you condemn Hamas, simply yes or no fell on deaf ears and became, I condemn Hamas but… Nailed it. The reason I posed the question the way I did was to avoid that, but this is fab. what is mind boggling is no one talks about Yemen and Syria. Where is the condemnation there? The body counts there are significantly higher. Israel defends it's homeland and everyone turned into I condemn Hamas But... The "but" is it's trending." Uk government issued licences to sell billions in weapons to Saudi, used to bomb yemini civilians. https://caat.org.uk/homepage/stop-arming-saudi-arabia/uk-arms-used-in-the-war-on-yemen/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread in theory should have been about 20 posts, depending on the amount of individuals taking part. Why is it so high? Why do you think it's so high? Having gone through the thread, the simple can you condemn Hamas, simply yes or no fell on deaf ears and became, I condemn Hamas but…" we get the but though Hamas snuffed 1400, Israel 10,000 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread in theory should have been about 20 posts, depending on the amount of individuals taking part. Why is it so high? Why do you think it's so high? Having gone through the thread, the simple can you condemn Hamas, simply yes or no fell on deaf ears and became, I condemn Hamas but… we get the but though Hamas snuffed 1400, Israel 10,000" Yemen over 400000 where is thier protest? Is it because its Arab vs Arab that it is not that important? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I condemn Hamas but… we get the but though Hamas snuffed 1400, Israel 10,000" The use of human shields and embedding yourself in civilian buildings might be an abhorrent war crime, but it is certainly effective. Your enemy either hesitates and wavers or gets castigated by all well-meaning people. Even your own atrocities are condemned with a but (or not at all). It's truly a winning strategy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
