FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The Israeli blockade….
The Israeli blockade….
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
Of fuel, food and medicines…..
2 questions….
1) would you consider this to be collective punishment?
2) if the answer to the collective punishment question “yes” then is what the Israeli government doing is a war crime? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Of fuel, food and medicines…..
2 questions….
1) would you consider this to be collective punishment?
2) if the answer to the collective punishment question “yes” then is what the Israeli government doing is a war crime? "
On your two points.
1. It is absolutely collective punishment, no question.
2. Yes. It is one of their many war crimes. So is their continued use of White Phosphorus. So is their targeting of civilian populations. So is their bombing of refugee camps. So is their targeting of key infrastructure. Etc etc.
This blockade didn't start now, it's been going on for years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No. It's a common tactic to deny your enemy of resupply. Who controls Gaza again? everything the Hamas health ministry reports in my mind is like any other government. Their goal is to win at all costs. Even if it's means sacrificing their own people.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of fuel, food and medicines…..
2 questions….
1) would you consider this to be collective punishment? "
The outcome to Gazans is collective deprivation. The outcome is dire. To know whether it is punishment, we need to understand intent. If it is military or operational, then it is not designed to collectively punish a populace. We can have opinions, but we cannot know.
Remember, collective punishment is performing purely punitive atrocities upon a group for the actions of a few, in order to deter those actions. E.g. shooting five random citizens in response to a theft, for no reason other than to instill fear and punishment.
Israel contends that aids shipments are a security risk, and provided some limited intelligence and evidence of this. Time will tell. Ultimately, they do not control the Egyptian border - Egypt works with the Israelis for whatever political reasons, and it is a sizeable border that could have multiple crossing points. But in a practical sense, Israel makes requests of Egypt which are generally followed. Furthermore, Egypt could be more proactive partner for the Palestinians.
It is important to also acknowledge and understand Hamas's involvement and hampering of any mitigation on Israel's part.
"
2) if the answer to the collective punishment question “yes” then is what the Israeli government doing is a war crime? "
If the answer is yes, then the Israeli government would likely be performing war crimes.
Red Cross:
http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/collective-punishments
"The term refers not only to criminal punishment, but also to other types of sanctions, harassment or administrative action taken against a group in retaliation for an act committed by an individual/s who are considered to form part of the group."
Not that "a retaliatory strike with military objectives" is not "in retaliation" in this sense.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
"
What's the threshold for donations to aid agencies that buys the right to a point of view on the situation in Gaza?
Follow up question, if your point of view is that there isn't enough collective punishment on Gaza, and that there should be more, do you need to steel money from an aid agency before you can express the opinion? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Of fuel, food and medicines…..
2 questions….
1) would you consider this to be collective punishment?
2) if the answer to the collective punishment question “yes” then is what the Israeli government doing is a war crime? "
It's not a war crime
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
What's the threshold for donations to aid agencies that buys the right to a point of view on the situation in Gaza?
Follow up question, if your point of view is that there isn't enough collective punishment on Gaza, and that there should be more, do you need to steel money from an aid agency before you can express the opinion?"
My point is that if you truly feel something needs doing, what are you actually doing about it? ...nothing or something?.
Where does it say that I have expressed a point of view in favour of anything especially in relation to collective punishment.....I am unsure what you mean about stealing aid money which may be an emotional outburst rather than a rational argument.
Let me be very clear about this. I respect your personal right to a point of view as a keyboard warrior rather than recognising you as an activist who strives to improve the situation.
If you believe that you have to pay to express solidarity with any cause, why not put it another way? What is stopping you from making a pledge of aid if you feel strongly enough about the situation? After all, many of us have paid to be site supporters (you and I included) so do not tell me that if we feel strong enough about the issue, we cannot afford to contribute through legitimate and non proscribed agencies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
What's the threshold for donations to aid agencies that buys the right to a point of view on the situation in Gaza?
Follow up question, if your point of view is that there isn't enough collective punishment on Gaza, and that there should be more, do you need to steel money from an aid agency before you can express the opinion?
My point is that if you truly feel something needs doing, what are you actually doing about it? ...nothing or something?.
"
Not sure what this has to do with a discussion about what's going on in the world.
"
Where does it say that I have expressed a point of view in favour of anything especially in relation to collective punishment.
"
It doesn't, why are you asking me this?
"
....I am unsure what you mean about stealing aid money which may be an emotional outburst rather than a rational argument.
"
You implied that to have a valid opinion on the collective punishment in Gaza, you need to donate to aid agencies. I was asking about the inverse of this. Pretty clear. I'm interested in your opinion.
"
Let me be very clear about this. I respect your personal right to a point of view as a keyboard warrior rather than recognising you as an activist who strives to improve the situation.
"
I can confirm, that I have no opinion on your opinion about the things you have incorrectly assumed about me based on my questions to your post.
"
If you believe that you have to pay to express solidarity with any cause, why not put it another way? What is stopping you from making a pledge of aid if you feel strongly enough about the situation? After all, many of us have paid to be site supporters (you and I included) so do not tell me that if we feel strong enough about the issue, we cannot afford to contribute through legitimate and non proscribed agencies."
You seem to be annoyed about the things you've assumed about me. Not sure why you didn't ask before assuming and getting annoyed and name calling.
Oh, and I'm still interested in the answers to the questions I asked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
What's the threshold for donations to aid agencies that buys the right to a point of view on the situation in Gaza?
Follow up question, if your point of view is that there isn't enough collective punishment on Gaza, and that there should be more, do you need to steel money from an aid agency before you can express the opinion?
My point is that if you truly feel something needs doing, what are you actually doing about it? ...nothing or something?.
Not sure what this has to do with a discussion about what's going on in the world.
Where does it say that I have expressed a point of view in favour of anything especially in relation to collective punishment.
It doesn't, why are you asking me this?
....I am unsure what you mean about stealing aid money which may be an emotional outburst rather than a rational argument.
You implied that to have a valid opinion on the collective punishment in Gaza, you need to donate to aid agencies. I was asking about the inverse of this. Pretty clear. I'm interested in your opinion.
Let me be very clear about this. I respect your personal right to a point of view as a keyboard warrior rather than recognising you as an activist who strives to improve the situation.
I can confirm, that I have no opinion on your opinion about the things you have incorrectly assumed about me based on my questions to your post.
If you believe that you have to pay to express solidarity with any cause, why not put it another way? What is stopping you from making a pledge of aid if you feel strongly enough about the situation? After all, many of us have paid to be site supporters (you and I included) so do not tell me that if we feel strong enough about the issue, we cannot afford to contribute through legitimate and non proscribed agencies.
You seem to be annoyed about the things you've assumed about me. Not sure why you didn't ask before assuming and getting annoyed and name calling.
Oh, and I'm still interested in the answers to the questions I asked."
1. Your first post in response to me was started with the phrase "if your point of view" and therefore it appears that you are assuming that it is my point of view.
2. My point is that we can either moan or do something.
3. The questions that you have asked are pretty flippant but clearly nobody would deny stealing legitimate aid nor would anyone support punishing innocents.
4. I am only angry insofar as there is far too much rhetoric on too many issues (whether Middle Eastern or wider afield) which is often backed with a sentiment of "I may have an opinion and want to try to persuade everyone that I am correct and change the universe, but I am not as committed to the cause when it comes to shifting myself off my backside and making a difference".
If my use of the phrase "keyboard warrior" offends anyone, then do something about it and try to make a real difference. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
What's the threshold for donations to aid agencies that buys the right to a point of view on the situation in Gaza?
Follow up question, if your point of view is that there isn't enough collective punishment on Gaza, and that there should be more, do you need to steel money from an aid agency before you can express the opinion?
My point is that if you truly feel something needs doing, what are you actually doing about it? ...nothing or something?.
Not sure what this has to do with a discussion about what's going on in the world.
Where does it say that I have expressed a point of view in favour of anything especially in relation to collective punishment.
It doesn't, why are you asking me this?
....I am unsure what you mean about stealing aid money which may be an emotional outburst rather than a rational argument.
You implied that to have a valid opinion on the collective punishment in Gaza, you need to donate to aid agencies. I was asking about the inverse of this. Pretty clear. I'm interested in your opinion.
Let me be very clear about this. I respect your personal right to a point of view as a keyboard warrior rather than recognising you as an activist who strives to improve the situation.
I can confirm, that I have no opinion on your opinion about the things you have incorrectly assumed about me based on my questions to your post.
If you believe that you have to pay to express solidarity with any cause, why not put it another way? What is stopping you from making a pledge of aid if you feel strongly enough about the situation? After all, many of us have paid to be site supporters (you and I included) so do not tell me that if we feel strong enough about the issue, we cannot afford to contribute through legitimate and non proscribed agencies.
You seem to be annoyed about the things you've assumed about me. Not sure why you didn't ask before assuming and getting annoyed and name calling.
Oh, and I'm still interested in the answers to the questions I asked.
1. Your first post in response to me was started with the phrase "if your point of view" and therefore it appears that you are assuming that it is my point of view.
"
Okay let's clarify, I clearly intended "your" meaning "someone", not specifically you.
"
2. My point is that we can either moan or do something.
"
What about discussion, isn't that allowed?
Aren't you moaning about people discussing things, are you donating to an aid agency focussing of the removal of the right to discuss issues?
"
3. The questions that you have asked are pretty flippant but clearly nobody would deny stealing legitimate aid nor would anyone support punishing innocents.
"
Of course they are flippant, they highlight the absurdity of suggesting you can't have an opinion if you don't donate to an aid agency.
"
4. I am only angry insofar as there is far too much rhetoric on too many issues (whether Middle Eastern or wider afield) which is often backed with a sentiment of "I may have an opinion and want to try to persuade everyone that I am correct and change the universe, but I am not as committed to the cause when it comes to shifting myself off my backside and making a difference".
If my use of the phrase "keyboard warrior" offends anyone, then do something about it and try to make a real difference."
How do you know the people you're moaning about aren't doing something already? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does."
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
What's the threshold for donations to aid agencies that buys the right to a point of view on the situation in Gaza?
Follow up question, if your point of view is that there isn't enough collective punishment on Gaza, and that there should be more, do you need to steel money from an aid agency before you can express the opinion?
My point is that if you truly feel something needs doing, what are you actually doing about it? ...nothing or something?.
Not sure what this has to do with a discussion about what's going on in the world.
Where does it say that I have expressed a point of view in favour of anything especially in relation to collective punishment.
It doesn't, why are you asking me this?
....I am unsure what you mean about stealing aid money which may be an emotional outburst rather than a rational argument.
You implied that to have a valid opinion on the collective punishment in Gaza, you need to donate to aid agencies. I was asking about the inverse of this. Pretty clear. I'm interested in your opinion.
Let me be very clear about this. I respect your personal right to a point of view as a keyboard warrior rather than recognising you as an activist who strives to improve the situation.
I can confirm, that I have no opinion on your opinion about the things you have incorrectly assumed about me based on my questions to your post.
If you believe that you have to pay to express solidarity with any cause, why not put it another way? What is stopping you from making a pledge of aid if you feel strongly enough about the situation? After all, many of us have paid to be site supporters (you and I included) so do not tell me that if we feel strong enough about the issue, we cannot afford to contribute through legitimate and non proscribed agencies.
You seem to be annoyed about the things you've assumed about me. Not sure why you didn't ask before assuming and getting annoyed and name calling.
Oh, and I'm still interested in the answers to the questions I asked.
1. Your first post in response to me was started with the phrase "if your point of view" and therefore it appears that you are assuming that it is my point of view.
Okay let's clarify, I clearly intended "your" meaning "someone", not specifically you.
2. My point is that we can either moan or do something.
What about discussion, isn't that allowed?
Aren't you moaning about people discussing things, are you donating to an aid agency focussing of the removal of the right to discuss issues?
3. The questions that you have asked are pretty flippant but clearly nobody would deny stealing legitimate aid nor would anyone support punishing innocents.
Of course they are flippant, they highlight the absurdity of suggesting you can't have an opinion if you don't donate to an aid agency.
4. I am only angry insofar as there is far too much rhetoric on too many issues (whether Middle Eastern or wider afield) which is often backed with a sentiment of "I may have an opinion and want to try to persuade everyone that I am correct and change the universe, but I am not as committed to the cause when it comes to shifting myself off my backside and making a difference".
If my use of the phrase "keyboard warrior" offends anyone, then do something about it and try to make a real difference.
How do you know the people you're moaning about aren't doing something already? "
What people choose to do is down to their own conscience.
The points that I have made do not state someone shouldn't have an opinion. What I am saying is that if someone truly feels something needs doing and are simply commenting on a swingers site, then perhaps they are not fully committed to putting things right if they are not prepared to go further.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
What's the threshold for donations to aid agencies that buys the right to a point of view on the situation in Gaza?
Follow up question, if your point of view is that there isn't enough collective punishment on Gaza, and that there should be more, do you need to steel money from an aid agency before you can express the opinion?
My point is that if you truly feel something needs doing, what are you actually doing about it? ...nothing or something?.
Not sure what this has to do with a discussion about what's going on in the world.
Where does it say that I have expressed a point of view in favour of anything especially in relation to collective punishment.
It doesn't, why are you asking me this?
....I am unsure what you mean about stealing aid money which may be an emotional outburst rather than a rational argument.
You implied that to have a valid opinion on the collective punishment in Gaza, you need to donate to aid agencies. I was asking about the inverse of this. Pretty clear. I'm interested in your opinion.
Let me be very clear about this. I respect your personal right to a point of view as a keyboard warrior rather than recognising you as an activist who strives to improve the situation.
I can confirm, that I have no opinion on your opinion about the things you have incorrectly assumed about me based on my questions to your post.
If you believe that you have to pay to express solidarity with any cause, why not put it another way? What is stopping you from making a pledge of aid if you feel strongly enough about the situation? After all, many of us have paid to be site supporters (you and I included) so do not tell me that if we feel strong enough about the issue, we cannot afford to contribute through legitimate and non proscribed agencies.
You seem to be annoyed about the things you've assumed about me. Not sure why you didn't ask before assuming and getting annoyed and name calling.
Oh, and I'm still interested in the answers to the questions I asked.
1. Your first post in response to me was started with the phrase "if your point of view" and therefore it appears that you are assuming that it is my point of view.
Okay let's clarify, I clearly intended "your" meaning "someone", not specifically you.
2. My point is that we can either moan or do something.
What about discussion, isn't that allowed?
Aren't you moaning about people discussing things, are you donating to an aid agency focussing of the removal of the right to discuss issues?
3. The questions that you have asked are pretty flippant but clearly nobody would deny stealing legitimate aid nor would anyone support punishing innocents.
Of course they are flippant, they highlight the absurdity of suggesting you can't have an opinion if you don't donate to an aid agency.
4. I am only angry insofar as there is far too much rhetoric on too many issues (whether Middle Eastern or wider afield) which is often backed with a sentiment of "I may have an opinion and want to try to persuade everyone that I am correct and change the universe, but I am not as committed to the cause when it comes to shifting myself off my backside and making a difference".
If my use of the phrase "keyboard warrior" offends anyone, then do something about it and try to make a real difference.
How do you know the people you're moaning about aren't doing something already?
What people choose to do is down to their own conscience.
The points that I have made do not state someone shouldn't have an opinion. What I am saying is that if someone truly feels something needs doing and are simply commenting on a swingers site, then perhaps they are not fully committed to putting things right if they are not prepared to go further.
"
How do you know people aren't involved in all kinds of action that reflects their opinions expressed here? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
What's the threshold for donations to aid agencies that buys the right to a point of view on the situation in Gaza?
Follow up question, if your point of view is that there isn't enough collective punishment on Gaza, and that there should be more, do you need to steel money from an aid agency before you can express the opinion?
My point is that if you truly feel something needs doing, what are you actually doing about it? ...nothing or something?.
Not sure what this has to do with a discussion about what's going on in the world.
Where does it say that I have expressed a point of view in favour of anything especially in relation to collective punishment.
It doesn't, why are you asking me this?
....I am unsure what you mean about stealing aid money which may be an emotional outburst rather than a rational argument.
You implied that to have a valid opinion on the collective punishment in Gaza, you need to donate to aid agencies. I was asking about the inverse of this. Pretty clear. I'm interested in your opinion.
Let me be very clear about this. I respect your personal right to a point of view as a keyboard warrior rather than recognising you as an activist who strives to improve the situation.
I can confirm, that I have no opinion on your opinion about the things you have incorrectly assumed about me based on my questions to your post.
If you believe that you have to pay to express solidarity with any cause, why not put it another way? What is stopping you from making a pledge of aid if you feel strongly enough about the situation? After all, many of us have paid to be site supporters (you and I included) so do not tell me that if we feel strong enough about the issue, we cannot afford to contribute through legitimate and non proscribed agencies.
You seem to be annoyed about the things you've assumed about me. Not sure why you didn't ask before assuming and getting annoyed and name calling.
Oh, and I'm still interested in the answers to the questions I asked.
1. Your first post in response to me was started with the phrase "if your point of view" and therefore it appears that you are assuming that it is my point of view.
Okay let's clarify, I clearly intended "your" meaning "someone", not specifically you.
2. My point is that we can either moan or do something.
What about discussion, isn't that allowed?
Aren't you moaning about people discussing things, are you donating to an aid agency focussing of the removal of the right to discuss issues?
3. The questions that you have asked are pretty flippant but clearly nobody would deny stealing legitimate aid nor would anyone support punishing innocents.
Of course they are flippant, they highlight the absurdity of suggesting you can't have an opinion if you don't donate to an aid agency.
4. I am only angry insofar as there is far too much rhetoric on too many issues (whether Middle Eastern or wider afield) which is often backed with a sentiment of "I may have an opinion and want to try to persuade everyone that I am correct and change the universe, but I am not as committed to the cause when it comes to shifting myself off my backside and making a difference".
If my use of the phrase "keyboard warrior" offends anyone, then do something about it and try to make a real difference.
How do you know the people you're moaning about aren't doing something already?
What people choose to do is down to their own conscience.
The points that I have made do not state someone shouldn't have an opinion. What I am saying is that if someone truly feels something needs doing and are simply commenting on a swingers site, then perhaps they are not fully committed to putting things right if they are not prepared to go further.
How do you know people aren't involved in all kinds of action that reflects their opinions expressed here?"
Such as....do you have any personal input? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does."
Don't forget the ever popular option of neither side winning. That seems to be the most common outcome in recent conflicts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
What's the threshold for donations to aid agencies that buys the right to a point of view on the situation in Gaza?
Follow up question, if your point of view is that there isn't enough collective punishment on Gaza, and that there should be more, do you need to steel money from an aid agency before you can express the opinion?
My point is that if you truly feel something needs doing, what are you actually doing about it? ...nothing or something?.
Not sure what this has to do with a discussion about what's going on in the world.
Where does it say that I have expressed a point of view in favour of anything especially in relation to collective punishment.
It doesn't, why are you asking me this?
....I am unsure what you mean about stealing aid money which may be an emotional outburst rather than a rational argument.
You implied that to have a valid opinion on the collective punishment in Gaza, you need to donate to aid agencies. I was asking about the inverse of this. Pretty clear. I'm interested in your opinion.
Let me be very clear about this. I respect your personal right to a point of view as a keyboard warrior rather than recognising you as an activist who strives to improve the situation.
I can confirm, that I have no opinion on your opinion about the things you have incorrectly assumed about me based on my questions to your post.
If you believe that you have to pay to express solidarity with any cause, why not put it another way? What is stopping you from making a pledge of aid if you feel strongly enough about the situation? After all, many of us have paid to be site supporters (you and I included) so do not tell me that if we feel strong enough about the issue, we cannot afford to contribute through legitimate and non proscribed agencies.
You seem to be annoyed about the things you've assumed about me. Not sure why you didn't ask before assuming and getting annoyed and name calling.
Oh, and I'm still interested in the answers to the questions I asked.
1. Your first post in response to me was started with the phrase "if your point of view" and therefore it appears that you are assuming that it is my point of view.
Okay let's clarify, I clearly intended "your" meaning "someone", not specifically you.
2. My point is that we can either moan or do something.
What about discussion, isn't that allowed?
Aren't you moaning about people discussing things, are you donating to an aid agency focussing of the removal of the right to discuss issues?
3. The questions that you have asked are pretty flippant but clearly nobody would deny stealing legitimate aid nor would anyone support punishing innocents.
Of course they are flippant, they highlight the absurdity of suggesting you can't have an opinion if you don't donate to an aid agency.
4. I am only angry insofar as there is far too much rhetoric on too many issues (whether Middle Eastern or wider afield) which is often backed with a sentiment of "I may have an opinion and want to try to persuade everyone that I am correct and change the universe, but I am not as committed to the cause when it comes to shifting myself off my backside and making a difference".
If my use of the phrase "keyboard warrior" offends anyone, then do something about it and try to make a real difference.
How do you know the people you're moaning about aren't doing something already?
What people choose to do is down to their own conscience.
The points that I have made do not state someone shouldn't have an opinion. What I am saying is that if someone truly feels something needs doing and are simply commenting on a swingers site, then perhaps they are not fully committed to putting things right if they are not prepared to go further.
How do you know people aren't involved in all kinds of action that reflects their opinions expressed here?
Such as....do you have any personal input?"
I'll let you into (a very well known, not so secret). You're wasting your time  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
What's the threshold for donations to aid agencies that buys the right to a point of view on the situation in Gaza?
Follow up question, if your point of view is that there isn't enough collective punishment on Gaza, and that there should be more, do you need to steel money from an aid agency before you can express the opinion?
My point is that if you truly feel something needs doing, what are you actually doing about it? ...nothing or something?.
Not sure what this has to do with a discussion about what's going on in the world.
Where does it say that I have expressed a point of view in favour of anything especially in relation to collective punishment.
It doesn't, why are you asking me this?
....I am unsure what you mean about stealing aid money which may be an emotional outburst rather than a rational argument.
You implied that to have a valid opinion on the collective punishment in Gaza, you need to donate to aid agencies. I was asking about the inverse of this. Pretty clear. I'm interested in your opinion.
Let me be very clear about this. I respect your personal right to a point of view as a keyboard warrior rather than recognising you as an activist who strives to improve the situation.
I can confirm, that I have no opinion on your opinion about the things you have incorrectly assumed about me based on my questions to your post.
If you believe that you have to pay to express solidarity with any cause, why not put it another way? What is stopping you from making a pledge of aid if you feel strongly enough about the situation? After all, many of us have paid to be site supporters (you and I included) so do not tell me that if we feel strong enough about the issue, we cannot afford to contribute through legitimate and non proscribed agencies.
You seem to be annoyed about the things you've assumed about me. Not sure why you didn't ask before assuming and getting annoyed and name calling.
Oh, and I'm still interested in the answers to the questions I asked.
1. Your first post in response to me was started with the phrase "if your point of view" and therefore it appears that you are assuming that it is my point of view.
Okay let's clarify, I clearly intended "your" meaning "someone", not specifically you.
2. My point is that we can either moan or do something.
What about discussion, isn't that allowed?
Aren't you moaning about people discussing things, are you donating to an aid agency focussing of the removal of the right to discuss issues?
3. The questions that you have asked are pretty flippant but clearly nobody would deny stealing legitimate aid nor would anyone support punishing innocents.
Of course they are flippant, they highlight the absurdity of suggesting you can't have an opinion if you don't donate to an aid agency.
4. I am only angry insofar as there is far too much rhetoric on too many issues (whether Middle Eastern or wider afield) which is often backed with a sentiment of "I may have an opinion and want to try to persuade everyone that I am correct and change the universe, but I am not as committed to the cause when it comes to shifting myself off my backside and making a difference".
If my use of the phrase "keyboard warrior" offends anyone, then do something about it and try to make a real difference.
How do you know the people you're moaning about aren't doing something already?
What people choose to do is down to their own conscience.
The points that I have made do not state someone shouldn't have an opinion. What I am saying is that if someone truly feels something needs doing and are simply commenting on a swingers site, then perhaps they are not fully committed to putting things right if they are not prepared to go further.
How do you know people aren't involved in all kinds of action that reflects their opinions expressed here?
Such as....do you have any personal input?
I'll let you into (a very well known, not so secret). You're wasting your time "
We probably all are  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. "
There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
Don't forget the ever popular option of neither side winning. That seems to be the most common outcome in recent conflicts."
True but we can leave and go home. Israel can't afford to lose and neither can Hamas. There is no place else to go. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
No it's a war and by its nature you stop anything your opposition can use what people need to understand is war is a horrible thing you need to get in finish it asap so there will always be civilian casualties if it means killing a thousand to kill ten of their fighters so be it thats the nature of war no point one side trying to and the other side doing what they want. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. "
Innocent civilians are always on the wrong end of things in all conflicts, or at least that how it appears. In this case like so many others the innocent civilians are on both sides not one or the other |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't.
Innocent civilians are always on the wrong end of things in all conflicts, or at least that how it appears. In this case like so many others the innocent civilians are on both sides not one or the other"
Lot of people justifying the deaths of innocent civilians from what I can see though...
Two years ago we were applauding health care workers. Now it's seemingly okay to bomb a hospital.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction."
And profit, never forget that.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't.
Innocent civilians are always on the wrong end of things in all conflicts, or at least that how it appears. In this case like so many others the innocent civilians are on both sides not one or the other"
You are correct and it is only a little different today than it has been throughout time.
We love to consider ourselves as this overachieving form that is capable of great things, which we are, however we are still tribal and I can’t see a time when we won’t be.
Tribes will go to war and try to dismantle the other tribes until there is only 1 dominant tribe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
What's the threshold for donations to aid agencies that buys the right to a point of view on the situation in Gaza?
Follow up question, if your point of view is that there isn't enough collective punishment on Gaza, and that there should be more, do you need to steel money from an aid agency before you can express the opinion?
My point is that if you truly feel something needs doing, what are you actually doing about it? ...nothing or something?.
Not sure what this has to do with a discussion about what's going on in the world.
Where does it say that I have expressed a point of view in favour of anything especially in relation to collective punishment.
It doesn't, why are you asking me this?
....I am unsure what you mean about stealing aid money which may be an emotional outburst rather than a rational argument.
You implied that to have a valid opinion on the collective punishment in Gaza, you need to donate to aid agencies. I was asking about the inverse of this. Pretty clear. I'm interested in your opinion.
Let me be very clear about this. I respect your personal right to a point of view as a keyboard warrior rather than recognising you as an activist who strives to improve the situation.
I can confirm, that I have no opinion on your opinion about the things you have incorrectly assumed about me based on my questions to your post.
If you believe that you have to pay to express solidarity with any cause, why not put it another way? What is stopping you from making a pledge of aid if you feel strongly enough about the situation? After all, many of us have paid to be site supporters (you and I included) so do not tell me that if we feel strong enough about the issue, we cannot afford to contribute through legitimate and non proscribed agencies.
You seem to be annoyed about the things you've assumed about me. Not sure why you didn't ask before assuming and getting annoyed and name calling.
Oh, and I'm still interested in the answers to the questions I asked.
1. Your first post in response to me was started with the phrase "if your point of view" and therefore it appears that you are assuming that it is my point of view.
Okay let's clarify, I clearly intended "your" meaning "someone", not specifically you.
2. My point is that we can either moan or do something.
What about discussion, isn't that allowed?
Aren't you moaning about people discussing things, are you donating to an aid agency focussing of the removal of the right to discuss issues?
3. The questions that you have asked are pretty flippant but clearly nobody would deny stealing legitimate aid nor would anyone support punishing innocents.
Of course they are flippant, they highlight the absurdity of suggesting you can't have an opinion if you don't donate to an aid agency.
4. I am only angry insofar as there is far too much rhetoric on too many issues (whether Middle Eastern or wider afield) which is often backed with a sentiment of "I may have an opinion and want to try to persuade everyone that I am correct and change the universe, but I am not as committed to the cause when it comes to shifting myself off my backside and making a difference".
If my use of the phrase "keyboard warrior" offends anyone, then do something about it and try to make a real difference.
How do you know the people you're moaning about aren't doing something already?
What people choose to do is down to their own conscience.
The points that I have made do not state someone shouldn't have an opinion. What I am saying is that if someone truly feels something needs doing and are simply commenting on a swingers site, then perhaps they are not fully committed to putting things right if they are not prepared to go further.
How do you know people aren't involved in all kinds of action that reflects their opinions expressed here?
Such as....do you have any personal input?"
Why are you asking me? This is the other chap's point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They could always release what hostages they have?
That would very much improve their standing in the world. If they still get obliterated after this the world must surely take a summer view. "
That would be politically impossible for them.
They would've then brought disaster upon Gaza with nothing to show for it (hostages swapped for terrorists and suspects in Israeli custody). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.."
Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit. "
Everyday existance is less troublesome than bombing 10,000 civilians. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit. "
....or R and D on new weaponry |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit.
....or R and D on new weaponry"
Supply and demand |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit.
Everyday existance is less troublesome than bombing 10,000 civilians. "
70000 die a year from fentanyl overdoses. 250000 from medical malpractice. What the difference? Someone is profiting. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ate_BMan
over a year ago
London |
"Of fuel, food and medicines…..
2 questions….
1) would you consider this to be collective punishment?
2) if the answer to the collective punishment question “yes” then is what the Israeli government doing is a war crime? "
Until the AP/Sources can verify claims from both sides it’ll be hard to verify truth from false but how Hamas are keeping 200+ hostages alive, fed and watered while the people they’re elected to represent are being killed in their thousands is worth knowing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit.
Everyday existance is less troublesome than bombing 10,000 civilians. 70000 die a year from fentanyl overdoses. 250000 from medical malpractice. What the difference? Someone is profiting."
Good examples.
None of these are good. I am against people profiting off the drugs that kill people and bombs that kill people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit.
Everyday existance is less troublesome than bombing 10,000 civilians. 70000 die a year from fentanyl overdoses. 250000 from medical malpractice. What the difference? Someone is profiting.
Good examples.
None of these are good. I am against people profiting off the drugs that kill people and bombs that kill people."
and doctors then. They kill just as many. If not more. Can't say because they are saving a life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit. "
When I walk in the good clean air if I want to over analyse that yes there is a profit margin in my clothes and footwear yes..
But I don't because that's a waste of energy and thought, but when it gets to the arms trade with its tentacles into the political system and how that affects and has affected foreign 'policy' that's the sort of profit I'm referring to..
And no my pension fund isn't tied to said military industrial complex..  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit.
When I walk in the good clean air if I want to over analyse that yes there is a profit margin in my clothes and footwear yes..
But I don't because that's a waste of energy and thought, but when it gets to the arms trade with its tentacles into the political system and how that affects and has affected foreign 'policy' that's the sort of profit I'm referring to..
And no my pension fund isn't tied to said military industrial complex.. "
Your taxes are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit.
Everyday existance is less troublesome than bombing 10,000 civilians. 70000 die a year from fentanyl overdoses. 250000 from medical malpractice. What the difference? Someone is profiting.
Good examples.
None of these are good. I am against people profiting off the drugs that kill people and bombs that kill people. and doctors then. They kill just as many. If not more. Can't say because they are saving a life."
Doctors are making money from killing people?
You've lost me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit.
When I walk in the good clean air if I want to over analyse that yes there is a profit margin in my clothes and footwear yes..
But I don't because that's a waste of energy and thought, but when it gets to the arms trade with its tentacles into the political system and how that affects and has affected foreign 'policy' that's the sort of profit I'm referring to..
And no my pension fund isn't tied to said military industrial complex.. Your taxes are."
Part of.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit.
When I walk in the good clean air if I want to over analyse that yes there is a profit margin in my clothes and footwear yes..
But I don't because that's a waste of energy and thought, but when it gets to the arms trade with its tentacles into the political system and how that affects and has affected foreign 'policy' that's the sort of profit I'm referring to..
And no my pension fund isn't tied to said military industrial complex.. Your taxes are.
Part of.. "
Still complicit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit.
When I walk in the good clean air if I want to over analyse that yes there is a profit margin in my clothes and footwear yes..
But I don't because that's a waste of energy and thought, but when it gets to the arms trade with its tentacles into the political system and how that affects and has affected foreign 'policy' that's the sort of profit I'm referring to..
And no my pension fund isn't tied to said military industrial complex.. Your taxes are.
Part of.. Still complicit."
Wrong word..
I don't consent to murder when that happens or mistreatment of prisoners or innocent people at a wedding being obliterated..
Even the person in the factory that makes the ordnance, nor the guy who inducted said person into the military is 'complicit'..
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit.
When I walk in the good clean air if I want to over analyse that yes there is a profit margin in my clothes and footwear yes..
But I don't because that's a waste of energy and thought, but when it gets to the arms trade with its tentacles into the political system and how that affects and has affected foreign 'policy' that's the sort of profit I'm referring to..
And no my pension fund isn't tied to said military industrial complex.. Your taxes are.
Part of.. Still complicit.
Wrong word..
I don't consent to murder when that happens or mistreatment of prisoners or innocent people at a wedding being obliterated..
Even the person in the factory that makes the ordnance, nor the guy who inducted said person into the military is 'complicit'..
"
Your taxes are bombing Gaza right now. Everyone here taxes are. Might as well put our names on the JDAMS. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither side can claim the moral high ground. It's war the objective is elimination or surrender. So trying to debate who is doing what to whom is moot. End goal is to win either the IDF does or Hamas does.
The side of innocent civilians can take the moral high ground. The side with Hamas and the IDF, can't. There is no morality in war. Morality is the privilege of those judging from the distance. War is only death and destruction.
And profit, never forget that.. Your everyday existence relies on someone making a profit.
When I walk in the good clean air if I want to over analyse that yes there is a profit margin in my clothes and footwear yes..
But I don't because that's a waste of energy and thought, but when it gets to the arms trade with its tentacles into the political system and how that affects and has affected foreign 'policy' that's the sort of profit I'm referring to..
And no my pension fund isn't tied to said military industrial complex.. Your taxes are.
Part of.. Still complicit.
Wrong word..
I don't consent to murder when that happens or mistreatment of prisoners or innocent people at a wedding being obliterated..
Even the person in the factory that makes the ordnance, nor the guy who inducted said person into the military is 'complicit'..
Your taxes are bombing Gaza right now. Everyone here taxes are. Might as well put our names on the JDAMS."
That's news to me..?
Still doesn't make you or I complicit though.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oversfunCouple
over a year ago
city centre |
"No it's a war and by its nature you stop anything your opposition can use what people need to understand is war is a horrible thing you need to get in finish it asap so there will always be civilian casualties if it means killing a thousand to kill ten of their fighters so be it thats the nature of war no point one side trying to and the other side doing what they want."
Omfg so you think its ok to kill 1000 innocent ppl to kill 10 terrorists you really are s_ _ k |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Still doesn't make you or I complicit though.."
Blu is right in this sense.
USA tax dollars are being used to purchase weaponry exported to Israel, which is then used in Gaza.
UK tax Sterling is being used in the same way.
Citizens of both the USA/UK are complicit in their taxes fuelling the weaponry being used by Israel. They are not given a choice to consent in this.
I should imagine some people might stop to think, "That Happy Meal I bought the kids last week had a tax element to it. Some of that tax paid in part for JDAM's sent to Israel. I wonder if a JDAM hit a McBurger joint in Palestine, killing some family's kids eating a Happy Meal?"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Still doesn't make you or I complicit though..
Blu is right in this sense.
USA tax dollars are being used to purchase weaponry exported to Israel, which is then used in Gaza.
UK tax Sterling is being used in the same way.
Citizens of both the USA/UK are complicit in their taxes fuelling the weaponry being used by Israel. They are not given a choice to consent in this.
I should imagine some people might stop to think, "That Happy Meal I bought the kids last week had a tax element to it. Some of that tax paid in part for JDAM's sent to Israel. I wonder if a JDAM hit a McBurger joint in Palestine, killing some family's kids eating a Happy Meal?"
"
Yet the soldiers doing the actual killings are the villains. Like it or not. It's not Israel vs Palestinians. It's Israel vs Hamas.Hamas is the government representing Palestinians. It's been representing them since 2006. If you can't handle how wars are fought. I suggest turning off your news feeds and take up a hobby. You will keep your shortsighted insanity I promise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Israel has surrounded al- shifa hospital on 3 sides leaving a evacuation point open for people who choose to leave. Did Hamas offer the same? It's documented by satellites. Highly doubtful Israel will face any war crimes.Guess we shall see. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So before I lose myself in the utter absurdity. OP need to put on makeup a dress and walk into a sharia mosque. It has to be Sharia and announce he is there for men. Hopefully he gets my point of view then. Record it for fact checkers. it would be a epic showdown. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sometimes I wish some of these fools after being to the middleast as a woman. Can understand my absurdity to their thought process. The only people I can rely on is people who actually been there. Pretending you know as to actual experience. Seems they know best. Yet when it comes to other issues. Like scientific evidence some people are wrong. science is theory wars are reality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
But when the science is used to pinpoint accuracy when dropping a bomb to avoid civilian casualties . No you are indiscriminately bombing. Make up your fucking minds. Trust the science or don't. I am positive someone here would say don't bomb in the first place my empathy goes against it. What the difference between a virus and humans killing one another? Both should be eradicated if it is a detrement. Millions died for COVID. No different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What is a conundrum for me is the OP trusts everything that this administration puts forth for Americans. Yet when it comes to Hamas' interest he changes his mind. Even though the administration he rooted for is correct and as a right leaner I agree with this administrations assessment. I say defund Ukraine. He say no. Yet this administration is fully behind Israel. Let's talk about his hypocrisy. It's politically driven. Not reality. Nothing but jumping on the bandwagon. He was told to do so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
IDF just announced a special operation at Al- Shifa hospital. They called on Hamas to surrender or do some people prefer they don't to avoid civilian casualties. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
OP is a huge democrat supporter. But when it comes down to hard decisions. He would abandon his convictions to public outcry. I'll stand by mine. He does his on a whim and then he calls me out to satisfy his strange needs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"IDF just announced a special operation at Al- Shifa hospital. They called on Hamas to surrender or do some people prefer they don't to avoid civilian casualties. "
If Israel’s channel 13 is to believed in the last hour….. minimal weapons, no Hamas fighters, no tunnels……
So therefore the premise for going in was either a fabrication or yet another intelligence failure
Either way, going in is a massive no no under international law and the Geneva convention |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"IDF just announced a special operation at Al- Shifa hospital. They called on Hamas to surrender or do some people prefer they don't to avoid civilian casualties.
If Israel’s channel 13 is to believed in the last hour….. minimal weapons, no Hamas fighters, no tunnels……
So therefore the premise for going in was either a fabrication or yet another intelligence failure
Either way, going in is a massive no no under international law and the Geneva convention "
Doesn't look much like a HQ from what I've seen. Defintely a hub.
Minimal weaponry? I'm not sure on your definition of minimal but finding a weapons cache is finding a weapons cache.
No Hamas? That's because they're all dead outside or fled.
No tunnels but plenty of evidence in the basement of people being there.
As for the last statement. Its bollocks.
Can't attack by air, can't attack by ground. Fuck it, just let Hamas do what they want. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"What is a conundrum for me is the OP trusts everything that this administration puts forth for Americans. Yet when it comes to Hamas' interest he changes his mind. Even though the administration he rooted for is correct and as a right leaner I agree with this administrations assessment. I say defund Ukraine. He say no. Yet this administration is fully behind Israel. Let's talk about his hypocrisy. It's politically driven. Not reality. Nothing but jumping on the bandwagon. He was told to do so."
Actually…. Thanks for talk about my position without knowing my position 
Actually my position is the Isreal was entitled to a proportional response, but not entitled to collectively punishment an entire nation of the basic necessities to live
And actually during this…. I have not quoted either Hamas or IDF figures… but have gone with 3rd parties like UNRWA, UNICEF, the Red Cross/Crescent and organisations like DWB and MSF
Anyway, finally the UNSC have adopted a resolution by Malta calling for humanitarian pauses and calling for the blockade to lifted for humanitarian aid
The US instead of voting against like they have in other votes, this time decided to abstain… to allow it to go through, which means it’s binding under international law
Isreal have immediately said they will not abide by the UN resolution |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"What is a conundrum for me is the OP trusts everything that this administration puts forth for Americans. Yet when it comes to Hamas' interest he changes his mind. Even though the administration he rooted for is correct and as a right leaner I agree with this administrations assessment. I say defund Ukraine. He say no. Yet this administration is fully behind Israel. Let's talk about his hypocrisy. It's politically driven. Not reality. Nothing but jumping on the bandwagon. He was told to do so.
Actually…. Thanks for talk about my position without knowing my position
Actually my position is the Isreal was entitled to a proportional response, but not entitled to collectively punishment an entire nation of the basic necessities to live
And actually during this…. I have not quoted either Hamas or IDF figures… but have gone with 3rd parties like UNRWA, UNICEF, the Red Cross/Crescent and organisations like DWB and MSF
Anyway, finally the UNSC have adopted a resolution by Malta calling for humanitarian pauses and calling for the blockade to lifted for humanitarian aid
The US instead of voting against like they have in other votes, this time decided to abstain… to allow it to go through, which means it’s binding under international law
Isreal have immediately said they will not abide by the UN resolution "
I don’t want to be disrespectful to anything starting “UN”. But following on from the Greta thread and what does no climate justice in occupied lands mean. Having a UN definition provided, it has made me very cautious of their views / numbers and intent
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What is a conundrum for me is the OP trusts everything that this administration puts forth for Americans. Yet when it comes to Hamas' interest he changes his mind. Even though the administration he rooted for is correct and as a right leaner I agree with this administrations assessment. I say defund Ukraine. He say no. Yet this administration is fully behind Israel. Let's talk about his hypocrisy. It's politically driven. Not reality. Nothing but jumping on the bandwagon. He was told to do so.
Actually…. Thanks for talk about my position without knowing my position
Actually my position is the Isreal was entitled to a proportional response, but not entitled to collectively punishment an entire nation of the basic necessities to live
And actually during this…. I have not quoted either Hamas or IDF figures… but have gone with 3rd parties like UNRWA, UNICEF, the Red Cross/Crescent and organisations like DWB and MSF
Anyway, finally the UNSC have adopted a resolution by Malta calling for humanitarian pauses and calling for the blockade to lifted for humanitarian aid
The US instead of voting against like they have in other votes, this time decided to abstain… to allow it to go through, which means it’s binding under international law
Isreal have immediately said they will not abide by the UN resolution "
Who is going to enforce that law? UN has no backbone to enforce it. It's just a paper tiger thinking it's relevant. It's useless. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Article 6 of the Charter reads as follows: "A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."
This has never happened.
Article 5 provides for the suspension of a Member State:
"A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council."
The 7 Principles of the UN are
Peace and Security.
Human Rights.
Humanitarian Aid.
Sustainable Development and Climate Action.
International Law.
Global Issues.
Documents.
Official Languages.
What does the UN Charter say?
The Charter is an international treaty which codifies the basic tenets of international relations from the sovereign equality of states to prohibition of the use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Article 6 of the Charter reads as follows: "A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."
This has never happened.
Article 5 provides for the suspension of a Member State:
"A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council."
The 7 Principles of the UN are
Peace and Security.
Human Rights.
Humanitarian Aid.
Sustainable Development and Climate Action.
International Law.
Global Issues.
Documents.
Official Languages.
What does the UN Charter say?
The Charter is an international treaty which codifies the basic tenets of international relations from the sovereign equality of states to prohibition of the use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
Again who is going to enforce it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You all forget it's election season. If this administration chooses the UN over who Americans support. It's a guaranteed loss. 5 million of of Jewish decent here. That would guarantee a change in the Whitehouse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Let me up that number. Over 7 million. That is a substantial amount.
Leaving 324 million other US Citizens to decide if a change of administration is warranted."
Assuming herd mentality and a single issue election. The reality is that this will feature quite low in the priorities of the US electorate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Let me up that number. Over 7 million. That is a substantial amount.
Leaving 324 million other US Citizens to decide if a change of administration is warranted.
Assuming herd mentality and a single issue election. The reality is that this will feature quite low in the priorities of the US electorate."
NY state is not a low electorate now is it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"NY state is not a low electorate now is it."
Does the entirety of who enters the White House depend on one single state ?
.
Are you suggesting that 7 million NY voters can hold the whole of the USA to ransom and elect their own president ?
.
If that is the case, why are votes held elsewhere then ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"NY state is not a low electorate now is it.
Does the entirety of who enters the White House depend on one single state ?
.
Are you suggesting that 7 million NY voters can hold the whole of the USA to ransom and elect their own president ?
.
If that is the case, why are votes held elsewhere then ?"
Yes if you look at the last electorate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"NY state is not a low electorate now is it.
Does the entirety of who enters the White House depend on one single state ?
.
Are you suggesting that 7 million NY voters can hold the whole of the USA to ransom and elect their own president ?
.
If that is the case, why are votes held elsewhere then ? Yes if you look at the last electorate."
if you go look at what states have the most Jewish populations. You might be surprised at the electoral votes for those states. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rHotNottsMan
over a year ago
Dubai & Nottingham |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
"
Charity doesn’t earn anyone an opinion.
Give what you give privately, whether that’s affordable, or sacrificial, there’s never a need to jump out of an aeroplane or make a song and dance about it. There are also many other ways to help aside from giving money to charities. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oversfunCouple
over a year ago
city centre |
"NY state is not a low electorate now is it.
Does the entirety of who enters the White House depend on one single state ?
.
Are you suggesting that 7 million NY voters can hold the whole of the USA to ransom and elect their own president ?
.
If that is the case, why are votes held elsewhere then ? Yes if you look at the last electorate. if you go look at what states have the most Jewish populations. You might be surprised at the electoral votes for those states."
id put money on at least 70%of americans not knowing anything about palestine/isreal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"NY state is not a low electorate now is it.
Does the entirety of who enters the White House depend on one single state ?
.
Are you suggesting that 7 million NY voters can hold the whole of the USA to ransom and elect their own president ?
.
If that is the case, why are votes held elsewhere then ? Yes if you look at the last electorate. if you go look at what states have the most Jewish populations. You might be surprised at the electoral votes for those states.id put money on at least 70%of americans not knowing anything about palestine/isreal"
Doubtful we have one of the biggest Jewish populations. I would say though compared to the UK we are apt to interact with Jewish people than you are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *estivalMan
over a year ago
borehamwood |
"NY state is not a low electorate now is it.
Does the entirety of who enters the White House depend on one single state ?
.
Are you suggesting that 7 million NY voters can hold the whole of the USA to ransom and elect their own president ?
.
If that is the case, why are votes held elsewhere then ? Yes if you look at the last electorate. if you go look at what states have the most Jewish populations. You might be surprised at the electoral votes for those states.id put money on at least 70%of americans not knowing anything about palestine/isreal Doubtful we have one of the biggest Jewish populations. I would say though compared to the UK we are apt to interact with Jewish people than you are."
depends on where in uk where i am in north london have huge jewish population leeds also has big jewish population, not sure about rest of uk |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ammskiMan
over a year ago
lytham st.annes |
"NY state is not a low electorate now is it.
Does the entirety of who enters the White House depend on one single state ?
.
Are you suggesting that 7 million NY voters can hold the whole of the USA to ransom and elect their own president ?
.
If that is the case, why are votes held elsewhere then ? Yes if you look at the last electorate. if you go look at what states have the most Jewish populations. You might be surprised at the electoral votes for those states.id put money on at least 70%of americans not knowing anything about palestine/isreal Doubtful we have one of the biggest Jewish populations. I would say though compared to the UK we are apt to interact with Jewish people than you are.depends on where in uk where i am in north london have huge jewish population leeds also has big jewish population, not sure about rest of uk"
Manchester has quite a few Jews |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"....and how many people that are going to comment are making donations to aid agencies? Or are people talking the talk but not walking the walk?
I know it's an aside to the complex issues which many see in terms of black and white, but doesn't action such as supporting aid agencies determine whether a person is a keyboard warrior intent on venting their hatred or a true campaigner for the innocents caught up in these terrible events?
Charity doesn’t earn anyone an opinion.
Give what you give privately, whether that’s affordable, or sacrificial, there’s never a need to jump out of an aeroplane or make a song and dance about it. There are also many other ways to help aside from giving money to charities."
You are correct to state that donations of time or cash to charity do not buy an opinion. However, maybe it does in some way define between whether someone is a serious activist (hopefully supporting the innocents caught up in this) or simply an antagonist. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Not sure what "buying" opinion means. Everyone has the right to have opinion on any matter. At the same time, others have the right not to give a fuck about your opinion or to criticise, mock and condemn it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
