FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Parliament at its Finest pt2
Parliament at its Finest pt2
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"We need to redefine pile on of it's as just three people disagreeing with someone. It's a bit snowflakey, and if many people disagree, maybe one should reflect on they believe what they believe. That said... Inflammatory or bait posts will get reactions. And so there may be three quick responses all saying the same thing. There is not a forum hive mind that knows what someone else is writing. However It is poor form when someone doesn't read responses from an older post and just repeats a view already expressed. It's often unhelpful when someone jumps on anothers reply to "and another thing" especially if answering for someone who they disagree with. I don't agree with bringing up past threads / points unless it's pertinent. My view with many of these points is that the person knows they are contradictory (most of us are) and isn't going to concede. I'd rather find new battles than fight old ones ! (No idea if this counts as part of your pile on. Let me know if you can't breathe down there)" The pile on wasn't on me, please read past posts. I was asked if I agree or disagree so answered here. you didn't need to reply, but glad you did. | |||
""Not including the last poster but, PILE ON. I hear that is a fact when 3 pile on 1." You mean, when one person makes abhorrent comments, a maximum of two people may object? ......... one" Your point? Your objection? | |||
"We need to redefine pile on of it's as just three people disagreeing with someone. It's a bit snowflakey, and if many people disagree, maybe one should reflect on they believe what they believe. That said... Inflammatory or bait posts will get reactions. And so there may be three quick responses all saying the same thing. There is not a forum hive mind that knows what someone else is writing. However It is poor form when someone doesn't read responses from an older post and just repeats a view already expressed. It's often unhelpful when someone jumps on anothers reply to "and another thing" especially if answering for someone who they disagree with. I don't agree with bringing up past threads / points unless it's pertinent. My view with many of these points is that the person knows they are contradictory (most of us are) and isn't going to concede. I'd rather find new battles than fight old ones ! (No idea if this counts as part of your pile on. Let me know if you can't breathe down there) The pile on wasn't on me, please read past posts. I was asked if I agree or disagree so answered here. you didn't need to reply, but glad you did." ah Coolio. The one, two, three, pile on made me think you were also being piled on as well as A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). | |||
"We need to redefine pile on of it's as just three people disagreeing with someone. It's a bit snowflakey, and if many people disagree, maybe one should reflect on they believe what they believe. That said... Inflammatory or bait posts will get reactions. And so there may be three quick responses all saying the same thing. There is not a forum hive mind that knows what someone else is writing. However It is poor form when someone doesn't read responses from an older post and just repeats a view already expressed. It's often unhelpful when someone jumps on anothers reply to "and another thing" especially if answering for someone who they disagree with. I don't agree with bringing up past threads / points unless it's pertinent. My view with many of these points is that the person knows they are contradictory (most of us are) and isn't going to concede. I'd rather find new battles than fight old ones ! (No idea if this counts as part of your pile on. Let me know if you can't breathe down there) The pile on wasn't on me, please read past posts. I was asked if I agree or disagree so answered here. you didn't need to reply, but glad you did.ah Coolio. The one, two, three, pile on made me think you were also being piled on as well as A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). " As I wrote before, when I see the ability to reproduce taken away, children who would become mothers and fathers being targeted and killed so they will never have children. Starving and hoarding people before bombing them, waiting for my time to come or my loved ones I could go on and on, to hear the reply Israel has the right. | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). " Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. | |||
| |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention." I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. | |||
| |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say." You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel?" Yes they do have influence for one they could stop training their pilots, selling arms. May be they would stop killing the population then. Apparently Israel are winning so Hamas ability to fight has been taken away from them. Thats if you are seeing this as a war, I do not, I see it as a massacre which is being posted on line by Israeli soldiers. No matter what the government should clear its position to reflect the population position which is ceasefire, you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller. | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? Yes they do have influence for one they could stop training their pilots, selling arms. May be they would stop killing the population then. Apparently Israel are winning so Hamas ability to fight has been taken away from them. Thats if you are seeing this as a war, I do not, I see it as a massacre which is being posted on line by Israeli soldiers. No matter what the government should clear its position to reflect the population position which is ceasefire, you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller." Whoah there cowboy hold your horses! You are addressing me and saying “you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller” what group is it you claim I am in? I have stated my position clearly either in this or the previous thread. Go read it. | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear." This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? Yes they do have influence for one they could stop training their pilots, selling arms. May be they would stop killing the population then. Apparently Israel are winning so Hamas ability to fight has been taken away from them. Thats if you are seeing this as a war, I do not, I see it as a massacre which is being posted on line by Israeli soldiers. No matter what the government should clear its position to reflect the population position which is ceasefire, you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller. Whoah there cowboy hold your horses! You are addressing me and saying “you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller” what group is it you claim I am in? I have stated my position clearly either in this or the previous thread. Go read it. " Now this is how it goes, this is the edge of the in coming insults. | |||
" Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory." That certainly wasn't clear. Still not sure what your issue was or remedy would be. | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory." 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? | |||
" Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. That certainly wasn't clear. Still not sure what your issue was or remedy would be." It is you who is saying I have an issue, so you must know what it is I expect. | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? Yes they do have influence for one they could stop training their pilots, selling arms. May be they would stop killing the population then. Apparently Israel are winning so Hamas ability to fight has been taken away from them. Thats if you are seeing this as a war, I do not, I see it as a massacre which is being posted on line by Israeli soldiers. No matter what the government should clear its position to reflect the population position which is ceasefire, you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller. Whoah there cowboy hold your horses! You are addressing me and saying “you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller” what group is it you claim I am in? I have stated my position clearly either in this or the previous thread. Go read it. Now this is how it goes, this is the edge of the in coming insults." 1. Answer the question. 2. What insults? Show me where I have insulted you? | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway?" It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world. | |||
" It is you who is saying I have an issue, so you must know what it is I expect." When you quote a poster and say "pile on", the implication is that you have an issue and that the quotee was a perpetrator. If not, then great! Apologies for seeing an issue where there was none. | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world." Pile on by definition cannot be started by the first person who engages. Arguably not the second either. In addition it has to be an attack on one poster not people querying or challenging their points of discussion or wanting to be part of the same discussion. | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? Yes they do have influence for one they could stop training their pilots, selling arms. May be they would stop killing the population then. Apparently Israel are winning so Hamas ability to fight has been taken away from them. Thats if you are seeing this as a war, I do not, I see it as a massacre which is being posted on line by Israeli soldiers. No matter what the government should clear its position to reflect the population position which is ceasefire, you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller. Whoah there cowboy hold your horses! You are addressing me and saying “you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller” what group is it you claim I am in? I have stated my position clearly either in this or the previous thread. Go read it. Now this is how it goes, this is the edge of the in coming insults. 1. Answer the question. 2. What insults? Show me where I have insulted you?" I am saying this is the edge of how I have seen insults start, a poster is asked to clarify their position, then criticised for their position, they defend their position so insults regarding their position are used like woke snow flake was used yesterday remember. No won't answer your questions I am on a keyboard. | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world. Pile on by definition cannot be started by the first person who engages. Arguably not the second either. In addition it has to be an attack on one poster not people querying or challenging their points of discussion or wanting to be part of the same discussion." now they are arguing on the meaning of a word pity sake. | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? Yes they do have influence for one they could stop training their pilots, selling arms. May be they would stop killing the population then. Apparently Israel are winning so Hamas ability to fight has been taken away from them. Thats if you are seeing this as a war, I do not, I see it as a massacre which is being posted on line by Israeli soldiers. No matter what the government should clear its position to reflect the population position which is ceasefire, you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller. Whoah there cowboy hold your horses! You are addressing me and saying “you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller” what group is it you claim I am in? I have stated my position clearly either in this or the previous thread. Go read it. Now this is how it goes, this is the edge of the in coming insults. 1. Answer the question. 2. What insults? Show me where I have insulted you? I am saying this is the edge of how I have seen insults start, a poster is asked to clarify their position, then criticised for their position, they defend their position so insults regarding their position are used like woke snow flake was used yesterday remember. No won't answer your questions I am on a keyboard." Won’t or can’t as it shows you have no valid point! You were trying to associate me with people who do not condemn (or even support) the actions of Israel. You are wrong. I have clearly stated I condemn both Hamas and Israel and I feel such sorrow for the horror and suffering of innocent people on both sides. So are you now saying “you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller”? | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world. Pile on by definition cannot be started by the first person who engages. Arguably not the second either. In addition it has to be an attack on one poster not people querying or challenging their points of discussion or wanting to be part of the same discussion. now they are arguing on the meaning of a word pity sake." Nope. You brought it up. Just clarifying  | |||
| |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world. Pile on by definition cannot be started by the first person who engages. Arguably not the second either. In addition it has to be an attack on one poster not people querying or challenging their points of discussion or wanting to be part of the same discussion. now they are arguing on the meaning of a word pity sake. Nope. You brought it up. Just clarifying "I brought it up as you were the one who first said it just to be clear.  | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world. Pile on by definition cannot be started by the first person who engages. Arguably not the second either. In addition it has to be an attack on one poster not people querying or challenging their points of discussion or wanting to be part of the same discussion. now they are arguing on the meaning of a word pity sake. Nope. You brought it up. Just clarifying
I brought it up as you were the one who first said it just to be clear. "And I just provided the definition. It wasn’t a pile on | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? Yes they do have influence for one they could stop training their pilots, selling arms. May be they would stop killing the population then. Apparently Israel are winning so Hamas ability to fight has been taken away from them. Thats if you are seeing this as a war, I do not, I see it as a massacre which is being posted on line by Israeli soldiers. No matter what the government should clear its position to reflect the population position which is ceasefire, you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller. Whoah there cowboy hold your horses! You are addressing me and saying “you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller” what group is it you claim I am in? I have stated my position clearly either in this or the previous thread. Go read it. Now this is how it goes, this is the edge of the in coming insults. 1. Answer the question. 2. What insults? Show me where I have insulted you? I am saying this is the edge of how I have seen insults start, a poster is asked to clarify their position, then criticised for their position, they defend their position so insults regarding their position are used like woke snow flake was used yesterday remember. No won't answer your questions I am on a keyboard. Won’t or can’t as it shows you have no valid point! You were trying to associate me with people who do not condemn (or even support) the actions of Israel. You are wrong. I have clearly stated I condemn both Hamas and Israel and I feel such sorrow for the horror and suffering of innocent people on both sides. So are you now saying “you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller”?" won't. because you know what you mean but ask me, I am baffled as you clearly already knew what you meant and tried to transfer those thoughts to me. in short you answered your own question. | |||
| |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world. Pile on by definition cannot be started by the first person who engages. Arguably not the second either. In addition it has to be an attack on one poster not people querying or challenging their points of discussion or wanting to be part of the same discussion. now they are arguing on the meaning of a word pity sake. Nope. You brought it up. Just clarifying
I brought it up as you were the one who first said it just to be clear.
And I just provided the definition. It wasn’t a pile on "As it was you who first brought pile on to light, then it is your right to change the rules. But it also makes you a hypocrite just saying. | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? Yes they do have influence for one they could stop training their pilots, selling arms. May be they would stop killing the population then. Apparently Israel are winning so Hamas ability to fight has been taken away from them. Thats if you are seeing this as a war, I do not, I see it as a massacre which is being posted on line by Israeli soldiers. No matter what the government should clear its position to reflect the population position which is ceasefire, you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller. Whoah there cowboy hold your horses! You are addressing me and saying “you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller” what group is it you claim I am in? I have stated my position clearly either in this or the previous thread. Go read it. Now this is how it goes, this is the edge of the in coming insults. 1. Answer the question. 2. What insults? Show me where I have insulted you? I am saying this is the edge of how I have seen insults start, a poster is asked to clarify their position, then criticised for their position, they defend their position so insults regarding their position are used like woke snow flake was used yesterday remember. No won't answer your questions I am on a keyboard. Won’t or can’t as it shows you have no valid point! You were trying to associate me with people who do not condemn (or even support) the actions of Israel. You are wrong. I have clearly stated I condemn both Hamas and Israel and I feel such sorrow for the horror and suffering of innocent people on both sides. So are you now saying “you are in a small group now and it is getting smaller”? won't. because you know what you mean but ask me, I am baffled as you clearly already knew what you meant and tried to transfer those thoughts to me. in short you answered your own question." Ah you answered finally (hence my deleted post). So you are saying that people condemning both Hamas and Israel are “… in a small group now and it is getting smaller”? | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world. Pile on by definition cannot be started by the first person who engages. Arguably not the second either. In addition it has to be an attack on one poster not people querying or challenging their points of discussion or wanting to be part of the same discussion. now they are arguing on the meaning of a word pity sake. Nope. You brought it up. Just clarifying
I brought it up as you were the one who first said it just to be clear.
And I just provided the definition. It wasn’t a pile on
As it was you who first brought pile on to light, then it is your right to change the rules.
But it also makes you a hypocrite just saying."No rules were changed. By definition only later pilees can be accused of a pile on not the first one or two people in the discussion. It really isn’t a hard concept | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world. Pile on by definition cannot be started by the first person who engages. Arguably not the second either. In addition it has to be an attack on one poster not people querying or challenging their points of discussion or wanting to be part of the same discussion. now they are arguing on the meaning of a word pity sake. Nope. You brought it up. Just clarifying
I brought it up as you were the one who first said it just to be clear.
And I just provided the definition. It wasn’t a pile on
As it was you who first brought pile on to light, then it is your right to change the rules.
But it also makes you a hypocrite just saying.
No rules were changed. By definition only later pilees can be accused of a pile on not the first one or two people in the discussion. It really isn’t a hard concept "It is your thing as I said so you can do what you wish, my point is that it was you who put that phrase out their and it was you in the pile on. But that is not my point my point is. Genocide by means of taking away the right to reproduce, by denying hospital treatment, starvation, blocked into a small area waiting to be bombed that's my point deflection has no affect on me I am afraid. | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world. Pile on by definition cannot be started by the first person who engages. Arguably not the second either. In addition it has to be an attack on one poster not people querying or challenging their points of discussion or wanting to be part of the same discussion. now they are arguing on the meaning of a word pity sake. Nope. You brought it up. Just clarifying
I brought it up as you were the one who first said it just to be clear.
And I just provided the definition. It wasn’t a pile on
As it was you who first brought pile on to light, then it is your right to change the rules.
But it also makes you a hypocrite just saying.
No rules were changed. By definition only later pilees can be accused of a pile on not the first one or two people in the discussion. It really isn’t a hard concept
It is your thing as I said so you can do what you wish, my point is that it was you who put that phrase out their and it was you in the pile on.
But that is not my point my point is.
Genocide by means of taking away the right to reproduce, by denying hospital treatment, starvation, blocked into a small area waiting to be bombed that's my point deflection has no affect on me I am afraid."Feels like the Twilight Zone in here sometimes! Pile On definition provided. There really is nothing more to say on the matter. Now on the more serious point…you replied to me telling me I was part of a small group getting smaller. The implication, intended or otherwise (and I think intended) was that I supported the actions of Israel ergo in your eyes I supported genocide. Sorry but I am not going to let that lie. This seems to be the modus operandi of several posters on here. Imply insults then refuse to admit when they are caught out as wrong. You made a mistake. Admit it and we can move on. This is not “distraction” this is about honest representation of what people have said. | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world. Pile on by definition cannot be started by the first person who engages. Arguably not the second either. In addition it has to be an attack on one poster not people querying or challenging their points of discussion or wanting to be part of the same discussion. now they are arguing on the meaning of a word pity sake. Nope. You brought it up. Just clarifying
I brought it up as you were the one who first said it just to be clear.
And I just provided the definition. It wasn’t a pile on
As it was you who first brought pile on to light, then it is your right to change the rules.
But it also makes you a hypocrite just saying.
No rules were changed. By definition only later pilees can be accused of a pile on not the first one or two people in the discussion. It really isn’t a hard concept
It is your thing as I said so you can do what you wish, my point is that it was you who put that phrase out their and it was you in the pile on.
But that is not my point my point is.
Genocide by means of taking away the right to reproduce, by denying hospital treatment, starvation, blocked into a small area waiting to be bombed that's my point deflection has no affect on me I am afraid.
Feels like the Twilight Zone in here sometimes!
Pile On definition provided. There really is nothing more to say on the matter.
Now on the more serious point…you replied to me telling me I was part of a small group getting smaller. The implication, intended or otherwise (and I think intended) was that I supported the actions of Israel ergo in your eyes I supported genocide.
Sorry but I am not going to let that lie. This seems to be the modus operandi of several posters on here. Imply insults then refuse to admit when they are caught out as wrong.
You made a mistake. Admit it and we can move on. This is not “distraction” this is about honest representation of what people have said. "What you have to understand is I will do as I please, and there is nothing you or anyone can do about it. So next time think that person doesn't have to answer and vice versa, when you try and demand an answer next time know I won't meet your demands. If that means you have won some point well great for you. I do not support genocide in any form, murder is murder plain as. | |||
"A&E (where imo ot was half a pile on but also half confronting what looked iffy. And to be clear, that's the Zionist influence view, not the genocide view which I agree is greyer and has some evidence to argue, even if one doesn't agree with the final conclusion). Exactly. Genocide is a debatable topic. An antisemitic trope posing as legitimate consideration of a geopolitical issue needs to be called out for what it is, and also speaks to the character of the person pushing it. Unless Fab it's going to appoint a spokesperson, then every offended party may speak their mind when confronted with something offensive. A perceived pile-on is the consequence, not the intention. I wrote that the very word 'genocide' is being debated the meaning of the word not the action. When it comes to debating a word meaning things have got out of order. To hoard people in a little area with the intention of bombing said area, telling them they are going to be bombed with now where to go. To stop the ability to reproduce. To kill children who would have been fathers and mothers, grandparents. Taking away the ability to reproduce by means of violence is a form of genocide. But by all means defend your stance. When this genocide began there was a large movement defending the actions of Israel, against demonstrations calling those not intone with the narrative anti Semitic. Now as we see what has occurred those numbers have fallen, which is what they did in parliament so wrong there are enough people against this genocide for M.Ps to do the right thing and make the U.Ks position clear in other words do as the people say. You took issue with a "pile-on". The perceived pile-on was specifically to do with anti-Semitic tropes being used (certainly any postings getting this forum account). Accusations of the "real leaders" of the main parties in the US and UK being located in Tel Aviv. What issue do you have with either the content thereof, or manner in which this was done? Is it that three people voiced opposition to it, or something else? Please be clear. This is the issue for me, short memories. It was a poster who called out others (which there were 3) who piled on another poster, they argued 3 was a pile on, that poster is posting here right now and been part of a pile on 3 or more was the rule on the other thread so I called it out I have a long memory. 1. The only rules are set by Fab. Not you not me not anyone except fab. 2. Surely only the third person to join and thereafter can be accused of a pile on anyway? It was your post that I read concerning pile on's a few months ago, that's why I brought it up when I saw you as part of a pile on, hope that explains my position. Now I have a life to live so will not read your posts until later, opening my door and going out in to the real world. Pile on by definition cannot be started by the first person who engages. Arguably not the second either. In addition it has to be an attack on one poster not people querying or challenging their points of discussion or wanting to be part of the same discussion. now they are arguing on the meaning of a word pity sake. Nope. You brought it up. Just clarifying
I brought it up as you were the one who first said it just to be clear.
And I just provided the definition. It wasn’t a pile on
As it was you who first brought pile on to light, then it is your right to change the rules.
But it also makes you a hypocrite just saying.
No rules were changed. By definition only later pilees can be accused of a pile on not the first one or two people in the discussion. It really isn’t a hard concept
It is your thing as I said so you can do what you wish, my point is that it was you who put that phrase out their and it was you in the pile on.
But that is not my point my point is.
Genocide by means of taking away the right to reproduce, by denying hospital treatment, starvation, blocked into a small area waiting to be bombed that's my point deflection has no affect on me I am afraid.
Feels like the Twilight Zone in here sometimes!
Pile On definition provided. There really is nothing more to say on the matter.
Now on the more serious point…you replied to me telling me I was part of a small group getting smaller. The implication, intended or otherwise (and I think intended) was that I supported the actions of Israel ergo in your eyes I supported genocide.
Sorry but I am not going to let that lie. This seems to be the modus operandi of several posters on here. Imply insults then refuse to admit when they are caught out as wrong.
You made a mistake. Admit it and we can move on. This is not “distraction” this is about honest representation of what people have said.
What you have to understand is I will do as I please, and there is nothing you or anyone can do about it.
So next time think that person doesn't have to answer and vice versa, when you try and demand an answer next time know I won't meet your demands.
If that means you have won some point well great for you.
I do not support genocide in any form, murder is murder plain as."So you are not mature enough or man enough to admit you made a mistake? Ok then. At least we know. All you had to do was say “oh I missed your post(s) where you made your position on Israel etc clear. My mistake!” But you couldn’t could you. All I ask for is mature civil discussion. We all make mistakes. I certainly do. It is how you deal with them that demonstrates the kind of person you are. | |||
""Not including the last poster but, PILE ON. I hear that is a fact when 3 pile on 1." Blatantly lying and making up shit should be pretty much opposed by anyone who can see the issue is much more complex and that bad things have been carried out by both sides.. Funny enough you don't seem to be able to see the latter point either.. That's not to say that some of what Israel has done is acceptable by any stretch since Hamas butchered innocent men, women and children then went and hid behind their own innocent people knowing what the response would be.. ........ and three" Care to address my point that you seem unable or unwilling to accept and acknowledge that both sides in this war have done wrong.. Btw, not that it's any of your business but I'm on record on here as condemning Israel for it's actions in collectively punishing the Palestinians in Gaza at the outset.. Your opinion about pile on is pretty irrelevant, given you refuse to accept the premise that a person can't keep on making shit up and not expect to be challenged.. And when they do respond they go into victim mode rather than address their own inaccurate and grossly myopic view of this conflict, to not understand the cause and effect of this issue which has been going on before you and I were born is naive.. | |||
""Not including the last poster but, PILE ON. I hear that is a fact when 3 pile on 1." Blatantly lying and making up shit should be pretty much opposed by anyone who can see the issue is much more complex and that bad things have been carried out by both sides.. Funny enough you don't seem to be able to see the latter point either.. That's not to say that some of what Israel has done is acceptable by any stretch since Hamas butchered innocent men, women and children then went and hid behind their own innocent people knowing what the response would be.. ........ and three Care to address my point that you seem unable or unwilling to accept and acknowledge that both sides in this war have done wrong.. Btw, not that it's any of your business but I'm on record on here as condemning Israel for it's actions in collectively punishing the Palestinians in Gaza at the outset.. Your opinion about pile on is pretty irrelevant, given you refuse to accept the premise that a person can't keep on making shit up and not expect to be challenged.. And when they do respond they go into victim mode rather than address their own inaccurate and grossly myopic view of this conflict, to not understand the cause and effect of this issue which has been going on before you and I were born is naive.. " EErrr address your point eerrr NO | |||
| |||
"Thread ends. " And there we have it. Instead of using a discussion forum to, you know, discuss, some people use it as a platform to push their views and accuse people of things then seemingly stick their fingers in their ears and run away shouting “la la la”. Well done. Very well done. Slow hand clap! | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel?" The UK can do a lot to stop this genocide. As a starter, instead of 1- justifying the genocide and portraying it as "Israel defending itself" 2- Supplying Israel with weapons, bombs, inteligence, UK planes flying over Gaza to help with targets, 3- Taking a neutral stance in the Security Council of the UN 4- Going on a panic mode of a word (Collective punishment) on the SNP's Motion and hijacking Democracy for the sake of a foreign racist genocidal Apartheid state, 5- Bombing Yamen on behalf of Israel because the placed an embargo on Israel's ships at the cost of making UK's ships a legit target to the Houthis, 6- Turning the SNP's motion into a statment of condemnation of Hamas when it was originally supposed to be a motion to condemn and stop the genocide, And more that I haven't mentioned and mo | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? The UK can do a lot to stop this genocide. As a starter, instead of 1- justifying the genocide and portraying it as "Israel defending itself" 2- Supplying Israel with weapons, bombs, inteligence, UK planes flying over Gaza to help with targets, 3- Taking a neutral stance in the Security Council of the UN 4- Going on a panic mode of a word (Collective punishment) on the SNP's Motion and hijacking Democracy for the sake of a foreign racist genocidal Apartheid state, 5- Bombing Yamen on behalf of Israel because the placed an embargo on Israel's ships at the cost of making UK's ships a legit target to the Houthis, 6- Turning the SNP's motion into a statment of condemnation of Hamas when it was originally supposed to be a motion to condemn and stop the genocide, And more that I haven't mentioned and mo" Is there anything Iran could do? | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? The UK can do a lot to stop this genocide. As a starter, instead of 1- justifying the genocide and portraying it as "Israel defending itself" 2- Supplying Israel with weapons, bombs, inteligence, UK planes flying over Gaza to help with targets, 3- Taking a neutral stance in the Security Council of the UN 4- Going on a panic mode of a word (Collective punishment) on the SNP's Motion and hijacking Democracy for the sake of a foreign racist genocidal Apartheid state, 5- Bombing Yamen on behalf of Israel because the placed an embargo on Israel's ships at the cost of making UK's ships a legit target to the Houthis, 6- Turning the SNP's motion into a statment of condemnation of Hamas when it was originally supposed to be a motion to condemn and stop the genocide, And more that I haven't mentioned and mo Is there anything Iran could do?" What do you suggest Iran could do? | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? The UK can do a lot to stop this genocide. As a starter, instead of 1- justifying the genocide and portraying it as "Israel defending itself" 2- Supplying Israel with weapons, bombs, inteligence, UK planes flying over Gaza to help with targets, 3- Taking a neutral stance in the Security Council of the UN 4- Going on a panic mode of a word (Collective punishment) on the SNP's Motion and hijacking Democracy for the sake of a foreign racist genocidal Apartheid state, 5- Bombing Yamen on behalf of Israel because the placed an embargo on Israel's ships at the cost of making UK's ships a legit target to the Houthis, 6- Turning the SNP's motion into a statment of condemnation of Hamas when it was originally supposed to be a motion to condemn and stop the genocide, And more that I haven't mentioned and mo Is there anything Iran could do? What do you suggest Iran could do? " Stop supplying the hate in the region? Stop trying to take on the west via proxies? Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire. Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza. | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? The UK can do a lot to stop this genocide. As a starter, instead of 1- justifying the genocide and portraying it as "Israel defending itself" 2- Supplying Israel with weapons, bombs, inteligence, UK planes flying over Gaza to help with targets, 3- Taking a neutral stance in the Security Council of the UN 4- Going on a panic mode of a word (Collective punishment) on the SNP's Motion and hijacking Democracy for the sake of a foreign racist genocidal Apartheid state, 5- Bombing Yamen on behalf of Israel because the placed an embargo on Israel's ships at the cost of making UK's ships a legit target to the Houthis, 6- Turning the SNP's motion into a statment of condemnation of Hamas when it was originally supposed to be a motion to condemn and stop the genocide, And more that I haven't mentioned and mo" I'm probably more on palenstians side (not hamas) than you think. But regardless of where I stand on this, I also believe that calling anything genocide should be discussed carefully before it becomes the UKs official position. I also think the use of the team collective punishment needs more discussion in the House than the term woke or Islamist requires here. I don't see debate as attacking democracy. Accepting the motion went against convention, but wasn't without complete precedence. And SNPs reaction has made me lean towards this not being about Gaza. Ironically the motion that passed is probably more pro palenstine and anti Israel than would have happened sans the controversy. Which bit of the motion do you feel defends Israel actions in totallity? I read it as the action was too much, however you couldn't expect no reaction. Unless you believe Israel could take no action then you have to decide where the line is. | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? The UK can do a lot to stop this genocide. As a starter, instead of 1- justifying the genocide and portraying it as "Israel defending itself" 2- Supplying Israel with weapons, bombs, inteligence, UK planes flying over Gaza to help with targets, 3- Taking a neutral stance in the Security Council of the UN 4- Going on a panic mode of a word (Collective punishment) on the SNP's Motion and hijacking Democracy for the sake of a foreign racist genocidal Apartheid state, 5- Bombing Yamen on behalf of Israel because the placed an embargo on Israel's ships at the cost of making UK's ships a legit target to the Houthis, 6- Turning the SNP's motion into a statment of condemnation of Hamas when it was originally supposed to be a motion to condemn and stop the genocide, And more that I haven't mentioned and mo Is there anything Iran could do? What do you suggest Iran could do? Stop supplying the hate in the region? Stop trying to take on the west via proxies? Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire. Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza. " "Stop supplying the hate in the region? Not sure what you mean." Quite random and ambiguous. "Stop trying to take on the west via proxies?" Have I missed my geography lesson?! I thought the West was 1000's miles away from the middle East "Region" lol "Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire." What make you think Iran has control over Hamas? And Why would they stop People being ethnically cleansed and a genocide committed against them stop fighting back? "Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza." Isn't that the duty of the side that destroyed Gaza? | |||
"Does the UK Parliament have any influence over the Israeli government? What realistically could the UK do beyond saying we would like to see a ceasefire. Beyond words, what action could/should the UK take? Should that action apply to Hamas as well as Israel? The UK can do a lot to stop this genocide. As a starter, instead of 1- justifying the genocide and portraying it as "Israel defending itself" 2- Supplying Israel with weapons, bombs, inteligence, UK planes flying over Gaza to help with targets, 3- Taking a neutral stance in the Security Council of the UN 4- Going on a panic mode of a word (Collective punishment) on the SNP's Motion and hijacking Democracy for the sake of a foreign racist genocidal Apartheid state, 5- Bombing Yamen on behalf of Israel because the placed an embargo on Israel's ships at the cost of making UK's ships a legit target to the Houthis, 6- Turning the SNP's motion into a statment of condemnation of Hamas when it was originally supposed to be a motion to condemn and stop the genocide, And more that I haven't mentioned and mo Is there anything Iran could do? What do you suggest Iran could do? Stop supplying the hate in the region? Stop trying to take on the west via proxies? Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire. Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza. "Stop supplying the hate in the region? Not sure what you mean." Quite random and ambiguous. "Stop trying to take on the west via proxies?" Have I missed my geography lesson?! I thought the West was 1000's miles away from the middle East "Region" lol "Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire." What make you think Iran has control over Hamas? And Why would they stop People being ethnically cleansed and a genocide committed against them stop fighting back? "Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza." Isn't that the duty of the side that destroyed Gaza? " A ceasefire by definition is not one sided. And as far as I know, Hamas gladly agrees on ceasefire without the need for Iran "to force them" to stop the slaughter on Palestinian Children. Also there was a ceasefire for 6 days a couple months ago, but 15000 dead inocent palestinians didn't quinch Israel's thirst for Goym children blood | |||
"Is there anything Iran could do? What do you suggest Iran could do? Stop supplying the hate in the region? Stop trying to take on the west via proxies? Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire. Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza. "Stop supplying the hate in the region? Not sure what you mean." Quite random and ambiguous. "Stop trying to take on the west via proxies?" Have I missed my geography lesson?! I thought the West was 1000's miles away from the middle East "Region" lol "Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire." What make you think Iran has control over Hamas? And Why would they stop People being ethnically cleansed and a genocide committed against them stop fighting back? "Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza." Isn't that the duty of the side that destroyed Gaza? " Point 1: Supplying the hate in the region, you are close enough to the understanding of the turmoil and unrest that Iran provide in the region. The anger at the Saudi / Israel peace deal was a catalyst for the troubles, and now Saudi are actually insisting that a recognised state is needed for closer ties. That is / was a lot of pressure from Iran. The same types of pressures they put on the UK when the detained Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe for money owed? Iranian proxies, are picking fights with the USA from Jordan / Syria to Yemen. Retaliation for being dropped from the nuclear programme, and sanctions. Iran has plenty of control of Hamas, it would not be able to operate without Iranian backing, this is a given. Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran, it is the least they can do for the mess and devastation they have inflicted on the Palestinian civilians. | |||
"Is there anything Iran could do? What do you suggest Iran could do? Stop supplying the hate in the region? Stop trying to take on the west via proxies? Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire. Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza. "Stop supplying the hate in the region? Not sure what you mean." Quite random and ambiguous. "Stop trying to take on the west via proxies?" Have I missed my geography lesson?! I thought the West was 1000's miles away from the middle East "Region" lol "Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire." What make you think Iran has control over Hamas? And Why would they stop People being ethnically cleansed and a genocide committed against them stop fighting back? "Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza." Isn't that the duty of the side that destroyed Gaza? Point 1: Supplying the hate in the region, you are close enough to the understanding of the turmoil and unrest that Iran provide in the region. The anger at the Saudi / Israel peace deal was a catalyst for the troubles, and now Saudi are actually insisting that a recognised state is needed for closer ties. That is / was a lot of pressure from Iran. The same types of pressures they put on the UK when the detained Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe for money owed? Iranian proxies, are picking fights with the USA from Jordan / Syria to Yemen. Retaliation for being dropped from the nuclear programme, and sanctions. Iran has plenty of control of Hamas, it would not be able to operate without Iranian backing, this is a given. Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran, it is the least they can do for the mess and devastation they have inflicted on the Palestinian civilians. " Not sure how you equate Iran's critic of Saudi Arabia's illegal regime's Support for an Apartheid State actively commiting ethnic cleansing and illegal ocupation and currently committing a genocide to "Supplying hate in the region" "Iranian Proxis are attacking the USA in the region" Iraqis, Syrians and Yemenis are Attacking USA forces because: 1- Invading their territory illegally by force and refusing to leave 2- They are actively committing a genocide against the Palestinian People, 3- They're Bombing Yemen on behalf of a Terrorist Organisation called Israel that's currently committing a genocide. It's simple, the USA forces wouldn't be attacted if they were in the USA 100000's miles away from lands they're occupying by force. "Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran..." Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas? | |||
"Is there anything Iran could do? What do you suggest Iran could do? Stop supplying the hate in the region? Stop trying to take on the west via proxies? Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire. Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza. "Stop supplying the hate in the region? Not sure what you mean." Quite random and ambiguous. "Stop trying to take on the west via proxies?" Have I missed my geography lesson?! I thought the West was 1000's miles away from the middle East "Region" lol "Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire." What make you think Iran has control over Hamas? And Why would they stop People being ethnically cleansed and a genocide committed against them stop fighting back? "Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza." Isn't that the duty of the side that destroyed Gaza? Point 1: Supplying the hate in the region, you are close enough to the understanding of the turmoil and unrest that Iran provide in the region. The anger at the Saudi / Israel peace deal was a catalyst for the troubles, and now Saudi are actually insisting that a recognised state is needed for closer ties. That is / was a lot of pressure from Iran. The same types of pressures they put on the UK when the detained Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe for money owed? Iranian proxies, are picking fights with the USA from Jordan / Syria to Yemen. Retaliation for being dropped from the nuclear programme, and sanctions. Iran has plenty of control of Hamas, it would not be able to operate without Iranian backing, this is a given. Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran, it is the least they can do for the mess and devastation they have inflicted on the Palestinian civilians. Not sure how you equate Iran's critic of Saudi Arabia's illegal regime's Support for an Apartheid State actively commiting ethnic cleansing and illegal ocupation and currently committing a genocide to "Supplying hate in the region" "Iranian Proxis are attacking the USA in the region" Iraqis, Syrians and Yemenis are Attacking USA forces because: 1- Invading their territory illegally by force and refusing to leave 2- They are actively committing a genocide against the Palestinian People, 3- They're Bombing Yemen on behalf of a Terrorist Organisation called Israel that's currently committing a genocide. It's simple, the USA forces wouldn't be attacted if they were in the USA 100000's miles away from lands they're occupying by force. "Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran..." Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas? " This is the moment you either accept the way forward is acceptance of actions by all or there is no room for acceptance or negotiation. If it is the latter, there is no validity in asking Israel to stop doing anything, as you have taken away all the responsibility from other parties. | |||
"Is there anything Iran could do? What do you suggest Iran could do? Stop supplying the hate in the region? Stop trying to take on the west via proxies? Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire. Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza. "Stop supplying the hate in the region? Not sure what you mean." Quite random and ambiguous. "Stop trying to take on the west via proxies?" Have I missed my geography lesson?! I thought the West was 1000's miles away from the middle East "Region" lol "Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire." What make you think Iran has control over Hamas? And Why would they stop People being ethnically cleansed and a genocide committed against them stop fighting back? "Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza." Isn't that the duty of the side that destroyed Gaza? Point 1: Supplying the hate in the region, you are close enough to the understanding of the turmoil and unrest that Iran provide in the region. The anger at the Saudi / Israel peace deal was a catalyst for the troubles, and now Saudi are actually insisting that a recognised state is needed for closer ties. That is / was a lot of pressure from Iran. The same types of pressures they put on the UK when the detained Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe for money owed? Iranian proxies, are picking fights with the USA from Jordan / Syria to Yemen. Retaliation for being dropped from the nuclear programme, and sanctions. Iran has plenty of control of Hamas, it would not be able to operate without Iranian backing, this is a given. Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran, it is the least they can do for the mess and devastation they have inflicted on the Palestinian civilians. Not sure how you equate Iran's critic of Saudi Arabia's illegal regime's Support for an Apartheid State actively commiting ethnic cleansing and illegal ocupation and currently committing a genocide to "Supplying hate in the region" "Iranian Proxis are attacking the USA in the region" Iraqis, Syrians and Yemenis are Attacking USA forces because: 1- Invading their territory illegally by force and refusing to leave 2- They are actively committing a genocide against the Palestinian People, 3- They're Bombing Yemen on behalf of a Terrorist Organisation called Israel that's currently committing a genocide. It's simple, the USA forces wouldn't be attacted if they were in the USA 100000's miles away from lands they're occupying by force. "Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran..." Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas? " The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil? | |||
"Is there anything Iran could do? What do you suggest Iran could do? Stop supplying the hate in the region? Stop trying to take on the west via proxies? Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire. Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza. "Stop supplying the hate in the region? Not sure what you mean." Quite random and ambiguous. "Stop trying to take on the west via proxies?" Have I missed my geography lesson?! I thought the West was 1000's miles away from the middle East "Region" lol "Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire." What make you think Iran has control over Hamas? And Why would they stop People being ethnically cleansed and a genocide committed against them stop fighting back? "Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza." Isn't that the duty of the side that destroyed Gaza? Point 1: Supplying the hate in the region, you are close enough to the understanding of the turmoil and unrest that Iran provide in the region. The anger at the Saudi / Israel peace deal was a catalyst for the troubles, and now Saudi are actually insisting that a recognised state is needed for closer ties. That is / was a lot of pressure from Iran. The same types of pressures they put on the UK when the detained Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe for money owed? Iranian proxies, are picking fights with the USA from Jordan / Syria to Yemen. Retaliation for being dropped from the nuclear programme, and sanctions. Iran has plenty of control of Hamas, it would not be able to operate without Iranian backing, this is a given. Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran, it is the least they can do for the mess and devastation they have inflicted on the Palestinian civilians. Not sure how you equate Iran's critic of Saudi Arabia's illegal regime's Support for an Apartheid State actively commiting ethnic cleansing and illegal ocupation and currently committing a genocide to "Supplying hate in the region" "Iranian Proxis are attacking the USA in the region" Iraqis, Syrians and Yemenis are Attacking USA forces because: 1- Invading their territory illegally by force and refusing to leave 2- They are actively committing a genocide against the Palestinian People, 3- They're Bombing Yemen on behalf of a Terrorist Organisation called Israel that's currently committing a genocide. It's simple, the USA forces wouldn't be attacted if they were in the USA 100000's miles away from lands they're occupying by force. "Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran..." Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas? This is the moment you either accept the way forward is acceptance of actions by all or there is no room for acceptance or negotiation. If it is the latter, there is no validity in asking Israel to stop doing anything, as you have taken away all the responsibility from other parties. " You haven't addressed any of the ooints I made, or my legitimate question. You're shifting the blame onto the victims, and then say: If the victims don't accept to share the responsibilities of Israel's crimes, therefore Israel justified to continue it's genocide until it's completed | |||
"Is there anything Iran could do? What do you suggest Iran could do? Stop supplying the hate in the region? Stop trying to take on the west via proxies? Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire. Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza. "Stop supplying the hate in the region? Not sure what you mean." Quite random and ambiguous. "Stop trying to take on the west via proxies?" Have I missed my geography lesson?! I thought the West was 1000's miles away from the middle East "Region" lol "Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire." What make you think Iran has control over Hamas? And Why would they stop People being ethnically cleansed and a genocide committed against them stop fighting back? "Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza." Isn't that the duty of the side that destroyed Gaza? Point 1: Supplying the hate in the region, you are close enough to the understanding of the turmoil and unrest that Iran provide in the region. The anger at the Saudi / Israel peace deal was a catalyst for the troubles, and now Saudi are actually insisting that a recognised state is needed for closer ties. That is / was a lot of pressure from Iran. The same types of pressures they put on the UK when the detained Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe for money owed? Iranian proxies, are picking fights with the USA from Jordan / Syria to Yemen. Retaliation for being dropped from the nuclear programme, and sanctions. Iran has plenty of control of Hamas, it would not be able to operate without Iranian backing, this is a given. Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran, it is the least they can do for the mess and devastation they have inflicted on the Palestinian civilians. Not sure how you equate Iran's critic of Saudi Arabia's illegal regime's Support for an Apartheid State actively commiting ethnic cleansing and illegal ocupation and currently committing a genocide to "Supplying hate in the region" "Iranian Proxis are attacking the USA in the region" Iraqis, Syrians and Yemenis are Attacking USA forces because: 1- Invading their territory illegally by force and refusing to leave 2- They are actively committing a genocide against the Palestinian People, 3- They're Bombing Yemen on behalf of a Terrorist Organisation called Israel that's currently committing a genocide. It's simple, the USA forces wouldn't be attacted if they were in the USA 100000's miles away from lands they're occupying by force. "Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran..." Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas? This is the moment you either accept the way forward is acceptance of actions by all or there is no room for acceptance or negotiation. If it is the latter, there is no validity in asking Israel to stop doing anything, as you have taken away all the responsibility from other parties. You haven't addressed any of the ooints I made, or my legitimate question. You're shifting the blame onto the victims, and then say: If the victims don't accept to share the responsibilities of Israel's crimes, therefore Israel justified to continue it's genocide until it's completed " What was your legitimate question? | |||
" 15000 dead inocent palestinians didn't quinch Israel's thirst for Goym children blood" #NotAnAntisemite | |||
"Is there anything Iran could do? What do you suggest Iran could do? Stop supplying the hate in the region? Stop trying to take on the west via proxies? Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire. Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza. "Stop supplying the hate in the region? Not sure what you mean." Quite random and ambiguous. "Stop trying to take on the west via proxies?" Have I missed my geography lesson?! I thought the West was 1000's miles away from the middle East "Region" lol "Take control of what they started with Hamas and force a Hamas ceasefire." What make you think Iran has control over Hamas? And Why would they stop People being ethnically cleansed and a genocide committed against them stop fighting back? "Commit to contributing towards the rebuilding of Gaza." Isn't that the duty of the side that destroyed Gaza? Point 1: Supplying the hate in the region, you are close enough to the understanding of the turmoil and unrest that Iran provide in the region. The anger at the Saudi / Israel peace deal was a catalyst for the troubles, and now Saudi are actually insisting that a recognised state is needed for closer ties. That is / was a lot of pressure from Iran. The same types of pressures they put on the UK when the detained Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe for money owed? Iranian proxies, are picking fights with the USA from Jordan / Syria to Yemen. Retaliation for being dropped from the nuclear programme, and sanctions. Iran has plenty of control of Hamas, it would not be able to operate without Iranian backing, this is a given. Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran, it is the least they can do for the mess and devastation they have inflicted on the Palestinian civilians. Not sure how you equate Iran's critic of Saudi Arabia's illegal regime's Support for an Apartheid State actively commiting ethnic cleansing and illegal ocupation and currently committing a genocide to "Supplying hate in the region" "Iranian Proxis are attacking the USA in the region" Iraqis, Syrians and Yemenis are Attacking USA forces because: 1- Invading their territory illegally by force and refusing to leave 2- They are actively committing a genocide against the Palestinian People, 3- They're Bombing Yemen on behalf of a Terrorist Organisation called Israel that's currently committing a genocide. It's simple, the USA forces wouldn't be attacted if they were in the USA 100000's miles away from lands they're occupying by force. "Rebuilding of Gaza needs to be undertaken by those that destroyed it, Israel, Hamas and Iran..." Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas? This is the moment you either accept the way forward is acceptance of actions by all or there is no room for acceptance or negotiation. If it is the latter, there is no validity in asking Israel to stop doing anything, as you have taken away all the responsibility from other parties. You haven't addressed any of the ooints I made, or my legitimate question. You're shifting the blame onto the victims, and then say: If the victims don't accept to share the responsibilities of Israel's crimes, therefore Israel justified to continue it's genocide until it's completed What was your legitimate question? " I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" | |||
" 15000 dead inocent palestinians didn't quinch Israel's thirst for Goym children blood #NotAnAntisemite" The fact that the only part in that statement that makes you upset is the crime of using a Talmudic terminology used daily by Iasraeli Politicians, Rabbis, and Settlers by a gentile like me, and the cold blooded murder of 15000 inocent Muslims is nothing to you. Shows which one of us is a bigotted racist | |||
" 15000 dead inocent palestinians didn't quinch Israel's thirst for Goym children blood #NotAnAntisemite The fact that the only part in that statement that makes you upset is the crime of using a Talmudic terminology used daily by Iasraeli Politicians, Rabbis, and Settlers by a gentile like me, and the cold blooded murder of 15000 inocent Muslims is nothing to you. Shows which one of us is a bigotted racist" Exactly. The word Goyim used in this context demonstrates you're talking about Jews, not Zionists. The Blood Libel trope, the "thirst for Goyim blood", demonstrates that you're issue is not with Zionists, but with Jews more generally. | |||
| |||
" 15000 dead inocent palestinians didn't quinch Israel's thirst for Goym children blood #NotAnAntisemite The fact that the only part in that statement that makes you upset is the crime of using a Talmudic terminology used daily by Iasraeli Politicians, Rabbis, and Settlers by a gentile like me, and the cold blooded murder of 15000 inocent Muslims is nothing to you. Shows which one of us is a bigotted racist Exactly. The word Goyim used in this context demonstrates you're talking about Jews, not Zionists. The Blood Libel trope, the "thirst for Goyim blood", demonstrates that you're issue is not with Zionists, but with Jews more generally." Is it Islamophobic to call out ISIS who use Islamic terminology to justify their terrorist act? Is it bigotry against Christianity to call out KKK for using Bible verses to justify sclavery and their terrorist crimes? Is it antisemitic to quote Natanyahu when he equated Palestinians to the Biblical nation of Amalek, whom Joshua was ordered to exterminate them including their suckling babies? | |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" " The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it. | |||
 | |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it." According to your logic, the UK and the USA destroyed London and other military suspected targets during WW2. And the Jews who were fighting back the Germans are responsible for the Holocaust | |||
| |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it. According to your logic, the UK and the USA destroyed London and other military suspected targets during WW2. And the Jews who were fighting back the Germans are responsible for the Holocaust" How have you arrived at that conclusion? | |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it. According to your logic, the UK and the USA destroyed London and other military suspected targets during WW2. And the Jews who were fighting back the Germans are responsible for the Holocaust How have you arrived at that conclusion? " It's the exact same. You're basically saying: Palestinians are responsible for the destruction of Gaza, because how dare they build tunnels to be able to defend themselves. And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist | |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it." The USA have 10 military basis in Syria, spreading through the 1/3 of Syrian land. The only oil source of Syria. And Trump officially admitted the USA has taken over all Syrian oil Wells because they can. | |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it. According to your logic, the UK and the USA destroyed London and other military suspected targets during WW2. And the Jews who were fighting back the Germans are responsible for the Holocaust How have you arrived at that conclusion? It's the exact same. You're basically saying: Palestinians are responsible for the destruction of Gaza, because how dare they build tunnels to be able to defend themselves. And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist" it's not genocide Mrs x | |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it. According to your logic, the UK and the USA destroyed London and other military suspected targets during WW2. And the Jews who were fighting back the Germans are responsible for the Holocaust How have you arrived at that conclusion? It's the exact same. You're basically saying: Palestinians are responsible for the destruction of Gaza, because how dare they build tunnels to be able to defend themselves. And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist" Is it the Palestinians or Hamas that are building the tunnels? Or are you saying there is no difference? Dared to attack is why it is were it is right now, choices come with consequences, other options were and still are available above and beyond fighting. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Hamas members include ex Iranian Republican Guard. The IRG train and equip Hamas. Iran support Hamas and have influence over their actions. Just saying. Also it is a bit (well a lot) rich of AandE to complain about people not responding to his questions! Again, just saying!" Oops Iranian Revolutionary Guard | |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it. According to your logic, the UK and the USA destroyed London and other military suspected targets during WW2. And the Jews who were fighting back the Germans are responsible for the Holocaust How have you arrived at that conclusion? It's the exact same. You're basically saying: Palestinians are responsible for the destruction of Gaza, because how dare they build tunnels to be able to defend themselves. And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist Is it the Palestinians or Hamas that are building the tunnels? Or are you saying there is no difference? Dared to attack is why it is were it is right now, choices come with consequences, other options were and still are available above and beyond fighting. " Is Israel committing a genocide against Hamas or the Palestinians? The consequences came before the choices. Occupation + ethnic cleansing + Death camp = Right for armed resistance. You're saying armed resistance is rightfully punished by a genocide. And when people call you "genocide supporter and racist" you get upset and start crying | |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it. According to your logic, the UK and the USA destroyed London and other military suspected targets during WW2. And the Jews who were fighting back the Germans are responsible for the Holocaust How have you arrived at that conclusion? It's the exact same. You're basically saying: Palestinians are responsible for the destruction of Gaza, because how dare they build tunnels to be able to defend themselves. And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist Is it the Palestinians or Hamas that are building the tunnels? Or are you saying there is no difference? Dared to attack is why it is were it is right now, choices come with consequences, other options were and still are available above and beyond fighting. Is Israel committing a genocide against Hamas or the Palestinians? The consequences came before the choices. Occupation + ethnic cleansing + Death camp = Right for armed resistance. You're saying armed resistance is rightfully punished by a genocide. And when people call you "genocide supporter and racist" you get upset and start crying" Nobody that can think logically calls me any of those things. Going back to what I originally said, choices create consequences, do you believe Hamas made the right choice Oct 7th? If we start from that point we can begin to understand each others, points of view. | |||
"Hamas members include ex Iranian Republican Guard. The IRG train and equip Hamas. Iran support Hamas and have influence over their actions. Just saying. Also it is a bit (well a lot) rich of AandE to complain about people not responding to his questions! Again, just saying! Oops Iranian Revolutionary Guard" Name? Zionazi Army include British, American, Ukrainian and many other nationalities. While the UK stripping a British teenager from her citizen's rights for marrying an ISIS guy. The Hypocrisy. | |||
"Hamas members include ex Iranian Republican Guard. The IRG train and equip Hamas. Iran support Hamas and have influence over their actions. Just saying. Also it is a bit (well a lot) rich of AandE to complain about people not responding to his questions! Again, just saying! Oops Iranian Revolutionary Guard Name? Zionazi Army include British, American, Ukrainian and many other nationalities. While the UK stripping a British teenager from her citizen's rights for marrying an ISIS guy. The Hypocrisy. " ISIS terrorist, I think you meant. | |||
"Israel are not fighting Palestinians they are fighting Hamas. One is a terror group, the other is a group of civilians" When Britain declared war on Germany, we fully understood that the German people had voted for the Nazis. We were at war with Germany. The Palestinian Arabs of Gaza voted for Hamas, and recent polling suggests that their popularity remains high. As such, calling it a war against Hamas is more about semantics than it is about facts. | |||
"And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist" Yes, they are, because they were not acting in defence - the Palestinian Arabs have refused peace, refused a two-state solution and wasted aid on building a military infrastructure. They have not been occupied since 2005 and have had twenty years to build peace, but instead they have built weaponry and taught hatred in schools. This 'prison camp' has (or had) internet, phones, cars, a choice of food, hospitals and general infrastructure - plus borders with more than one country. They call for the destruction of Israel in their own constitution - which would be literal genocide. They are a bunch of Islamist nutjobs. | |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it. According to your logic, the UK and the USA destroyed London and other military suspected targets during WW2. And the Jews who were fighting back the Germans are responsible for the Holocaust How have you arrived at that conclusion? It's the exact same. You're basically saying: Palestinians are responsible for the destruction of Gaza, because how dare they build tunnels to be able to defend themselves. And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist Is it the Palestinians or Hamas that are building the tunnels? Or are you saying there is no difference? Dared to attack is why it is were it is right now, choices come with consequences, other options were and still are available above and beyond fighting. Is Israel committing a genocide against Hamas or the Palestinians? The consequences came before the choices. Occupation + ethnic cleansing + Death camp = Right for armed resistance. You're saying armed resistance is rightfully punished by a genocide. And when people call you "genocide supporter and racist" you get upset and start crying Nobody that can think logically calls me any of those things. Going back to what I originally said, choices create consequences, do you believe Hamas made the right choice Oct 7th? If we start from that point we can begin to understand each others, points of view." 1-The war didn't start on the 7th of October. 2- "Choices have consequences" is a clear unambiguous justification for what Israel has been doing since 7/10, The majority of the world's population agree it's a genocide. That makes you without a shadow of doubt that you are a genocide supporter. 3- Since you wouldn't apply the same "Choices have consequences logic to the Holocaust, or the London Bombing, therefore you are a supremacist bigoted racist. And since you try to deny it despite the facts, you are a coward hypocrite on top of that. At least supremacists in the 1900's weren't hypocrites and they proudly say they're supremacists. 4- You want to start from the 7th of October. What happened on the 7th of October is that Hamas humiliated the Israeli Army and put it in such a disarray that they killed their own people. And to cover up for their own blunder they blamed the civilian deaths on Hamas and added fiction horor stories to spice it up: "40 babies burned in the oven, cutting women's boobs and played football with them", "Stubbed pregnant women", "Graped women" blablabla and western Media and Ooliticians repeating the lies like always to justify their upcoming crimes. with zero proof. While there is plenty videos and witnesses of Israeli crimes during 7/10 and after. You're taking the side of the Devil. | |||
"And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist Yes, they are, because they were not acting in defence - the Palestinian Arabs have refused peace, refused a two-state solution and wasted aid on building a military infrastructure. They have not been occupied since 2005 and have had twenty years to build peace, but instead they have built weaponry and taught hatred in schools. This 'prison camp' has (or had) internet, phones, cars, a choice of food, hospitals and general infrastructure - plus borders with more than one country. They call for the destruction of Israel in their own constitution - which would be literal genocide. They are a bunch of Islamist nutjobs." So if Italy invaded the UK on the basis they've ruled parts of it 2000 years ago, Occupied 80% of it, and officially plan to take the other 20% showing their official map as the entirety of The UK, killed 25% of its population, got international superpowers to comfirm it's claim over the territory, kicked out 60% of its population and started bringing new "citizens" on the basis they are from the ancient Roman Empire territories in the Mediterranean (Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Greece, Italy, France ...) Then put 20% of its population in the Isle of Man, and made a prison camp with no right to entry or exist (allowed minimum food, electricity, water, internet just like British Prisons and less), Bombed them to kill few 1000's on a regular basis because they have more babies they Italy wants them to, so they "moan the lawn" as they officially call it, then when international "brokers of peace" try to make a Peace deal: UK citizens keep 5% of the land, the 60% population that was kicked out doesn't have the right to return, Italy keeps control of the economy and military the UK can can have, so they don't have any real freedom" when UK refuse the deal, Italy cried victim and justifies the takeover of the rest of the territories by: "We offered them peace and they refused it". How nice and civilised of Italy to do that right? The only democracy in the UK fighting these UK extremist, Christianist barbarians. | |||
"Hamas members include ex Iranian Republican Guard. The IRG train and equip Hamas. Iran support Hamas and have influence over their actions. Just saying. Also it is a bit (well a lot) rich of AandE to complain about people not responding to his questions! Again, just saying! Oops Iranian Revolutionary Guard Name? Zionazi Army include British, American, Ukrainian and many other nationalities. While the UK stripping a British teenager from her citizen's rights for marrying an ISIS guy. The Hypocrisy. " What on Earth are you even talking about. You are the Queen of false equivalence and tangential argument. You challenged why Iran should be part of any process/reparations trying to deny their involvement. I added some more context that Hamas have direct minks to the IRG. | |||
| |||
"“You want to start from the 7th of October. What happened on the 7th of October is that Hamas humiliated the Israeli Army and put it in such a disarray that they killed their own people. And to cover up for their own blunder they blamed the civilian deaths on Hamas and added fiction horor stories to spice it up: "40 babies burned in the oven, cutting women's boobs and played football with them", "Stubbed pregnant women", "Graped women" blablabla and western Media and Ooliticians repeating the lies like always to justify their upcoming crimes. with zero proof. While there is plenty videos and witnesses of Israeli crimes during 7/10 and after.”" Prove it! Oh yeah you won’t/can’t. You previously claimed footage showing some of this was fake and AI generated by the Israeli’s but then declared the footage showing the Israeli tank(s) killing own people as genuine. When asked whether that might be fake and AI generated you refused to answer. We see you for what you are! | |||
"And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist Yes, they are, because they were not acting in defence - the Palestinian Arabs have refused peace, refused a two-state solution and wasted aid on building a military infrastructure. They have not been occupied since 2005 and have had twenty years to build peace, but instead they have built weaponry and taught hatred in schools. This 'prison camp' has (or had) internet, phones, cars, a choice of food, hospitals and general infrastructure - plus borders with more than one country. They call for the destruction of Israel in their own constitution - which would be literal genocide. They are a bunch of Islamist nutjobs. So if Italy invaded the UK on the basis they've ruled parts of it 2000 years ago, Occupied 80% of it, and officially plan to take the other 20% showing their official map as the entirety of The UK, killed 25% of its population, got international superpowers to comfirm it's claim over the territory, kicked out 60% of its population and started bringing new "citizens" on the basis they are from the ancient Roman Empire territories in the Mediterranean (Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Greece, Italy, France ...) Then put 20% of its population in the Isle of Man, and made a prison camp with no right to entry or exist (allowed minimum food, electricity, water, internet just like British Prisons and less), Bombed them to kill few 1000's on a regular basis because they have more babies they Italy wants them to, so they "moan the lawn" as they officially call it, then when international "brokers of peace" try to make a Peace deal: UK citizens keep 5% of the land, the 60% population that was kicked out doesn't have the right to return, Italy keeps control of the economy and military the UK can can have, so they don't have any real freedom" when UK refuse the deal, Italy cried victim and justifies the takeover of the rest of the territories by: "We offered them peace and they refused it". How nice and civilised of Italy to do that right? The only democracy in the UK fighting these UK extremist, Christianist barbarians. " The new Italy/UK has the right to defend itself by committing a genocide if these barbarians dare to fight back with home made light weapons they managed to make. And If the UK people dare to say the whole UK is their country, that means they're anti-Italian racist fanatics calling for a genocide against the new Italy/uk | |||
"And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist Yes, they are, because they were not acting in defence - the Palestinian Arabs have refused peace, refused a two-state solution and wasted aid on building a military infrastructure. They have not been occupied since 2005 and have had twenty years to build peace, but instead they have built weaponry and taught hatred in schools. This 'prison camp' has (or had) internet, phones, cars, a choice of food, hospitals and general infrastructure - plus borders with more than one country. They call for the destruction of Israel in their own constitution - which would be literal genocide. They are a bunch of Islamist nutjobs. So if Italy invaded the UK on the basis they've ruled parts of it 2000 years ago, Occupied 80% of it, and officially plan to take the other 20% showing their official map as the entirety of The UK, killed 25% of its population, got international superpowers to comfirm it's claim over the territory, kicked out 60% of its population and started bringing new "citizens" on the basis they are from the ancient Roman Empire territories in the Mediterranean (Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Greece, Italy, France ...) Then put 20% of its population in the Isle of Man, and made a prison camp with no right to entry or exist (allowed minimum food, electricity, water, internet just like British Prisons and less), Bombed them to kill few 1000's on a regular basis because they have more babies they Italy wants them to, so they "moan the lawn" as they officially call it, then when international "brokers of peace" try to make a Peace deal: UK citizens keep 5% of the land, the 60% population that was kicked out doesn't have the right to return, Italy keeps control of the economy and military the UK can can have, so they don't have any real freedom" when UK refuse the deal, Italy cried victim and justifies the takeover of the rest of the territories by: "We offered them peace and they refused it". How nice and civilised of Italy to do that right? The only democracy in the UK fighting these UK extremist, Christianist barbarians. The new Italy/UK has the right to defend itself by committing a genocide if these barbarians dare to fight back with home made light weapons they managed to make. And If the UK people dare to say the whole UK is their country, that means they're anti-Italian racist fanatics calling for a genocide against the new Italy/uk" It’s an interesting analogy but you missed several things out: 1. The country of the UK did not exist as it had been part of another empire for over 2000 years (Roman, Byzantium, Crusader/Outreamer, Caliphate, Ottoman, British in the case of Palestine). 2. The latest Empire decided to work with the UN to determine the future of the territory. 3. The killing was on both sides from the beginning, so in your analogy The Brits were already killing Italians from the start. | |||
"“You want to start from the 7th of October. What happened on the 7th of October is that Hamas humiliated the Israeli Army and put it in such a disarray that they killed their own people. And to cover up for their own blunder they blamed the civilian deaths on Hamas and added fiction horor stories to spice it up: "40 babies burned in the oven, cutting women's boobs and played football with them", "Stubbed pregnant women", "Graped women" blablabla and western Media and Ooliticians repeating the lies like always to justify their upcoming crimes. with zero proof. While there is plenty videos and witnesses of Israeli crimes during 7/10 and after.” Prove it! Oh yeah you won’t/can’t. You previously claimed footage showing some of this was fake and AI generated by the Israeli’s but then declared the footage showing the Israeli tank(s) killing own people as genuine. When asked whether that might be fake and AI generated you refused to answer. We see you for what you are!" When 10 of people, each ask 10 questions while bringing up every subject I was involved in in other thread, all at the same time in one limited single thread, you can't possibly expect me to answer every single question was asked. Even we assume I didn't have a life outside fab. As for the footage, when a footage is debunked by expert as fake or AI made, adding to that other lies debunked not by Palestinians but by Journalists, experts and officials from the western and Israeli side, it becomes a very credible debunking. When Israeli media release footage from the Israeli helicopters' cameras obtained from the Israeli military as part of an investigation, showing the Helicopters shooting at 100's civilians and cars fleeing the festival, and showing Israeli tanks shelling the kibbutz houses, and in addition to that you have Israeli survivors witnessed to many Israelis killed by Israeli shelling.... This is not a Palestinian claim or Aljazeera claim. And so far nobody has debunked those footage or witness. | |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it. According to your logic, the UK and the USA destroyed London and other military suspected targets during WW2. And the Jews who were fighting back the Germans are responsible for the Holocaust How have you arrived at that conclusion? It's the exact same. You're basically saying: Palestinians are responsible for the destruction of Gaza, because how dare they build tunnels to be able to defend themselves. And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist Is it the Palestinians or Hamas that are building the tunnels? Or are you saying there is no difference? Dared to attack is why it is were it is right now, choices come with consequences, other options were and still are available above and beyond fighting. Is Israel committing a genocide against Hamas or the Palestinians? The consequences came before the choices. Occupation + ethnic cleansing + Death camp = Right for armed resistance. You're saying armed resistance is rightfully punished by a genocide. And when people call you "genocide supporter and racist" you get upset and start crying Nobody that can think logically calls me any of those things. Going back to what I originally said, choices create consequences, do you believe Hamas made the right choice Oct 7th? If we start from that point we can begin to understand each others, points of view. 1-The war didn't start on the 7th of October. 2- "Choices have consequences" is a clear unambiguous justification for what Israel has been doing since 7/10, The majority of the world's population agree it's a genocide. That makes you without a shadow of doubt that you are a genocide supporter. 3- Since you wouldn't apply the same "Choices have consequences logic to the Holocaust, or the London Bombing, therefore you are a supremacist bigoted racist. And since you try to deny it despite the facts, you are a coward hypocrite on top of that. At least supremacists in the 1900's weren't hypocrites and they proudly say they're supremacists. 4- You want to start from the 7th of October. What happened on the 7th of October is that Hamas humiliated the Israeli Army and put it in such a disarray that they killed their own people. And to cover up for their own blunder they blamed the civilian deaths on Hamas and added fiction horor stories to spice it up: "40 babies burned in the oven, cutting women's boobs and played football with them", "Stubbed pregnant women", "Graped women" blablabla and western Media and Ooliticians repeating the lies like always to justify their upcoming crimes. with zero proof. While there is plenty videos and witnesses of Israeli crimes during 7/10 and after. You're taking the side of the Devil. " My question still is unanswered, do you think Hamas made the right choice on Oct 7th? | |||
"“You want to start from the 7th of October. What happened on the 7th of October is that Hamas humiliated the Israeli Army and put it in such a disarray that they killed their own people. And to cover up for their own blunder they blamed the civilian deaths on Hamas and added fiction horor stories to spice it up: "40 babies burned in the oven, cutting women's boobs and played football with them", "Stubbed pregnant women", "Graped women" blablabla and western Media and Ooliticians repeating the lies like always to justify their upcoming crimes. with zero proof. While there is plenty videos and witnesses of Israeli crimes during 7/10 and after.” Prove it! Oh yeah you won’t/can’t. You previously claimed footage showing some of this was fake and AI generated by the Israeli’s but then declared the footage showing the Israeli tank(s) killing own people as genuine. When asked whether that might be fake and AI generated you refused to answer. We see you for what you are! When 10 of people, each ask 10 questions while bringing up every subject I was involved in in other thread, all at the same time in one limited single thread, you can't possibly expect me to answer every single question was asked. Even we assume I didn't have a life outside fab. As for the footage, when a footage is debunked by expert as fake or AI made, adding to that other lies debunked not by Palestinians but by Journalists, experts and officials from the western and Israeli side, it becomes a very credible debunking. When Israeli media release footage from the Israeli helicopters' cameras obtained from the Israeli military as part of an investigation, showing the Helicopters shooting at 100's civilians and cars fleeing the festival, and showing Israeli tanks shelling the kibbutz houses, and in addition to that you have Israeli survivors witnessed to many Israelis killed by Israeli shelling.... This is not a Palestinian claim or Aljazeera claim. And so far nobody has debunked those footage or witness. " Can you quote your sources and give links? I want to research this myself. Thanks. | |||
"[snip] How nice and civilised of Italy to do that right? The only democracy in the UK fighting these UK extremist, Christianist barbarians. " I removed a lot of your quote for simplicity. Your analogy is false because that isn't the only argument in play. The early zionists bought irrigated and farmed their own land and employed local Labour. The International community decided that Palestine should be a homeland for the Jews. The British were mandated to create that homeland. The Palestinians Arabs, under the Grand Mufti, supported the ideals of Nazism and even prevented refugees from arriving. The two-state solution was already enacted in 1922 with the creation of Transjordan (Jordan). There was never a Palestinian nation, never a 'free Palestine' - they never in history had autonomous rule. A large number of Palestinian Arabs were descended from Egyptians who had moved there to escape conscription. The Arabs have vast amounts of land, but they resent Israel because, under Islamic law, Arabs cannot be ruled by 'dhimmi'. | |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it. According to your logic, the UK and the USA destroyed London and other military suspected targets during WW2. And the Jews who were fighting back the Germans are responsible for the Holocaust How have you arrived at that conclusion? It's the exact same. You're basically saying: Palestinians are responsible for the destruction of Gaza, because how dare they build tunnels to be able to defend themselves. And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist Is it the Palestinians or Hamas that are building the tunnels? Or are you saying there is no difference? Dared to attack is why it is were it is right now, choices come with consequences, other options were and still are available above and beyond fighting. Is Israel committing a genocide against Hamas or the Palestinians? The consequences came before the choices. Occupation + ethnic cleansing + Death camp = Right for armed resistance. You're saying armed resistance is rightfully punished by a genocide. And when people call you "genocide supporter and racist" you get upset and start crying Nobody that can think logically calls me any of those things. Going back to what I originally said, choices create consequences, do you believe Hamas made the right choice Oct 7th? If we start from that point we can begin to understand each others, points of view. 1-The war didn't start on the 7th of October. 2- "Choices have consequences" is a clear unambiguous justification for what Israel has been doing since 7/10, The majority of the world's population agree it's a genocide. That makes you without a shadow of doubt that you are a genocide supporter. 3- Since you wouldn't apply the same "Choices have consequences logic to the Holocaust, or the London Bombing, therefore you are a supremacist bigoted racist. And since you try to deny it despite the facts, you are a coward hypocrite on top of that. At least supremacists in the 1900's weren't hypocrites and they proudly say they're supremacists. 4- You want to start from the 7th of October. What happened on the 7th of October is that Hamas humiliated the Israeli Army and put it in such a disarray that they killed their own people. And to cover up for their own blunder they blamed the civilian deaths on Hamas and added fiction horor stories to spice it up: "40 babies burned in the oven, cutting women's boobs and played football with them", "Stubbed pregnant women", "Graped women" blablabla and western Media and Ooliticians repeating the lies like always to justify their upcoming crimes. with zero proof. While there is plenty videos and witnesses of Israeli crimes during 7/10 and after. You're taking the side of the Devil. My question still is unanswered, do you think Hamas made the right choice on Oct 7th?" You're not seriously asking me that question in a country that criminalise positive opinion about Hamas? Are you? | |||
| |||
"What was your legitimate question? I made many points and few unanswered questions that you ignored. Here's a couple: "Which buildings Hamas and Iran destroyed in Gaza? Are you gonna next blame the genocide on Iran and Hamas?" "The USA is currently occupying the 1/3rd of Syrian Lands, and stealing 100% of Syrian oil for a decade. They're also ocupying Iraqi lands. Would you do the same and blame the UK if Iran was ocupying Scotland and Stealing it's oil?" The buildings that Hamas and Iran helped destroy: Are the buildings that contained the entrances to the tunnel networks, buildings that were used for storing weapons, buildings that were being used for military operations. All of those were taken by Hamas, built by Hamas and funded by Iran. The Israeli offensive in retaliation for the October 7th attacks was a direct response to Hamas, who were being supported by Iran. The ongoing carnage, as I have already mentioned needs everyone from all sides to accept they are all complicit in this disaster and stop now. The USA are not occupying 33% of Syrian land, and the oil being taken is a claim from Syria post the US attack on its forces, I'm struggling to find real evidence this is the case, but I will not dismiss this as untrue until I can find the evidence to dismiss or prove it. According to your logic, the UK and the USA destroyed London and other military suspected targets during WW2. And the Jews who were fighting back the Germans are responsible for the Holocaust How have you arrived at that conclusion? It's the exact same. You're basically saying: Palestinians are responsible for the destruction of Gaza, because how dare they build tunnels to be able to defend themselves. And you're saying they're responsible for the genocide they're facing because they dared to attack the occupying power that's taken their lands and homes and actively ethnicaly cleansing them and restricting them to a life of a prison camp. Genocide is a well justified punishment for resisting foreign occupation right? As long as it's Muslims who are dying, it's well deserved. How dare they resist Is it the Palestinians or Hamas that are building the tunnels? Or are you saying there is no difference? Dared to attack is why it is were it is right now, choices come with consequences, other options were and still are available above and beyond fighting. Is Israel committing a genocide against Hamas or the Palestinians? The consequences came before the choices. Occupation + ethnic cleansing + Death camp = Right for armed resistance. You're saying armed resistance is rightfully punished by a genocide. And when people call you "genocide supporter and racist" you get upset and start crying Nobody that can think logically calls me any of those things. Going back to what I originally said, choices create consequences, do you believe Hamas made the right choice Oct 7th? If we start from that point we can begin to understand each others, points of view. 1-The war didn't start on the 7th of October. 2- "Choices have consequences" is a clear unambiguous justification for what Israel has been doing since 7/10, The majority of the world's population agree it's a genocide. That makes you without a shadow of doubt that you are a genocide supporter. 3- Since you wouldn't apply the same "Choices have consequences logic to the Holocaust, or the London Bombing, therefore you are a supremacist bigoted racist. And since you try to deny it despite the facts, you are a coward hypocrite on top of that. At least supremacists in the 1900's weren't hypocrites and they proudly say they're supremacists. 4- You want to start from the 7th of October. What happened on the 7th of October is that Hamas humiliated the Israeli Army and put it in such a disarray that they killed their own people. And to cover up for their own blunder they blamed the civilian deaths on Hamas and added fiction horor stories to spice it up: "40 babies burned in the oven, cutting women's boobs and played football with them", "Stubbed pregnant women", "Graped women" blablabla and western Media and Ooliticians repeating the lies like always to justify their upcoming crimes. with zero proof. While there is plenty videos and witnesses of Israeli crimes during 7/10 and after. You're taking the side of the Devil. My question still is unanswered, do you think Hamas made the right choice on Oct 7th? You're not seriously asking me that question in a country that criminalise positive opinion about Hamas? Are you? " I think that answers it! | |||
| |||
" My question still is unanswered, do you think Hamas made the right choice on Oct 7th? You're not seriously asking me that question in a country that criminalise positive opinion about Hamas? Are you? " If you support the choice of Hamas to attack Oct 7th, what gives you the right to criticise Israel for starting its offensive? As I have mentioned previously, if you cannot accept that both sides have gone to far, this will never end. | |||
| |||
" My question still is unanswered, do you think Hamas made the right choice on Oct 7th? You're not seriously asking me that question in a country that criminalise positive opinion about Hamas? Are you? If you support the choice of Hamas to attack Oct 7th, what gives you the right to criticise Israel for starting its offensive? As I have mentioned previously, if you cannot accept that both sides have gone to far, this will never end. " The Palestinians' are resisting occupation, ethnic cleansing, Prison death camp and now a genocide. Armed resistance is their basic human right according to international law, and according to any moral code of every single culture in the world. Only supremacists with double standards deny them that. When a big guy with a big stick supported by a gang of big guys with big sticks is rap*ing a woman, then she uses her nails to scratch him back in defense of herself, that doesn't give the grapist a right to exterminate her. If you think he does under the claim that he's defending himself, then you need to get your morals out the gutters | |||
" My question still is unanswered, do you think Hamas made the right choice on Oct 7th? You're not seriously asking me that question in a country that criminalise positive opinion about Hamas? Are you? If you support the choice of Hamas to attack Oct 7th, what gives you the right to criticise Israel for starting its offensive? As I have mentioned previously, if you cannot accept that both sides have gone to far, this will never end. The Palestinians' are resisting occupation, ethnic cleansing, Prison death camp and now a genocide. Armed resistance is their basic human right according to international law, and according to any moral code of every single culture in the world. Only supremacists with double standards deny them that. When a big guy with a big stick supported by a gang of big guys with big sticks is rap*ing a woman, then she uses her nails to scratch him back in defense of herself, that doesn't give the grapist a right to exterminate her. If you think he does under the claim that he's defending himself, then you need to get your morals out the gutters " Can you stay in the shallow end and stop diving in head first? I would say that the actions of Hamas on Oct 7th, have served them more harm than good, and surely even you can see this? I will tell you what will come from this, a tighter grip from Iran on Palestinians. | |||
" My question still is unanswered, do you think Hamas made the right choice on Oct 7th? You're not seriously asking me that question in a country that criminalise positive opinion about Hamas? Are you? If you support the choice of Hamas to attack Oct 7th, what gives you the right to criticise Israel for starting its offensive? As I have mentioned previously, if you cannot accept that both sides have gone to far, this will never end. The Palestinians' are resisting occupation, ethnic cleansing, Prison death camp and now a genocide. Armed resistance is their basic human right according to international law, and according to any moral code of every single culture in the world. Only supremacists with double standards deny them that. When a big guy with a big stick supported by a gang of big guys with big sticks is rap*ing a woman, then she uses her nails to scratch him back in defense of herself, that doesn't give the grapist a right to exterminate her. If you think he does under the claim that he's defending himself, then you need to get your morals out the gutters " Using your analogy what happened on 7 Oct is more akin to the woman after having been r@ped then staying quiet for a bit before breaking into one of her attackers house and killing him. They are both crimes. | |||
" Using your analogy what happened on 7 Oct is more akin to the woman after having been r@ped then staying quiet for a bit before breaking into one of her attackers house and killing him. They are both crimes." ...and killing his family. | |||
" My question still is unanswered, do you think Hamas made the right choice on Oct 7th? You're not seriously asking me that question in a country that criminalise positive opinion about Hamas? Are you? If you support the choice of Hamas to attack Oct 7th, what gives you the right to criticise Israel for starting its offensive? As I have mentioned previously, if you cannot accept that both sides have gone to far, this will never end. The Palestinians' are resisting occupation, ethnic cleansing, Prison death camp and now a genocide. Armed resistance is their basic human right according to international law, and according to any moral code of every single culture in the world. Only supremacists with double standards deny them that. When a big guy with a big stick supported by a gang of big guys with big sticks is rap*ing a woman, then she uses her nails to scratch him back in defense of herself, that doesn't give the grapist a right to exterminate her. If you think he does under the claim that he's defending himself, then you need to get your morals out the gutters Using your analogy what happened on 7 Oct is more akin to the woman after having been r@ped then staying quiet for a bit before breaking into one of her attackers house and killing him. They are both crimes." for me the ability fails as it equates the government with it's people. Which is dangerous as it then gives Israel justification for attacking palenstians. It also suggests that the women may be able to attack the other big men. Which may be A&Es view. But may be just an example of analogies being a bit shit for complex issues. | |||
" My question still is unanswered, do you think Hamas made the right choice on Oct 7th? You're not seriously asking me that question in a country that criminalise positive opinion about Hamas? Are you? If you support the choice of Hamas to attack Oct 7th, what gives you the right to criticise Israel for starting its offensive? As I have mentioned previously, if you cannot accept that both sides have gone to far, this will never end. The Palestinians' are resisting occupation, ethnic cleansing, Prison death camp and now a genocide. Armed resistance is their basic human right according to international law, and according to any moral code of every single culture in the world. Only supremacists with double standards deny them that. When a big guy with a big stick supported by a gang of big guys with big sticks is rap*ing a woman, then she uses her nails to scratch him back in defense of herself, that doesn't give the grapist a right to exterminate her. If you think he does under the claim that he's defending himself, then you need to get your morals out the gutters Can you stay in the shallow end and stop diving in head first? I would say that the actions of Hamas on Oct 7th, have served them more harm than good, and surely even you can see this? I will tell you what will come from this, a tighter grip from Iran on Palestinians. " You're obsessed with Iran. Some woman would rather fight to death before she gives in to her grapist. All your concern now is condemning her for resisting, and all she's getting from you is telling her: "cut down your terrorist nails, so that my guy can finish you at peace and without him getting being scratched" The Palestinians would rather die while putting up a fight, than die as cowards. | |||
"The British were a colonial invader that occupied the land by force." So were the Eqyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Arabs*, Ottomans. *Arab Muslims conquered the land and imposed Islam on the people. If you are going to claim Canaanites etc then you’ll find the same genes in the Jews as well as Palestinians. | |||
" My question still is unanswered, do you think Hamas made the right choice on Oct 7th? You're not seriously asking me that question in a country that criminalise positive opinion about Hamas? Are you? If you support the choice of Hamas to attack Oct 7th, what gives you the right to criticise Israel for starting its offensive? As I have mentioned previously, if you cannot accept that both sides have gone to far, this will never end. The Palestinians' are resisting occupation, ethnic cleansing, Prison death camp and now a genocide. Armed resistance is their basic human right according to international law, and according to any moral code of every single culture in the world. Only supremacists with double standards deny them that. When a big guy with a big stick supported by a gang of big guys with big sticks is rap*ing a woman, then she uses her nails to scratch him back in defense of herself, that doesn't give the grapist a right to exterminate her. If you think he does under the claim that he's defending himself, then you need to get your morals out the gutters Using your analogy what happened on 7 Oct is more akin to the woman after having been r@ped then staying quiet for a bit before breaking into one of her attackers house and killing him. They are both crimes.for me the ability fails as it equates the government with it's people. Which is dangerous as it then gives Israel justification for attacking palenstians. It also suggests that the women may be able to attack the other big men. Which may be A&Es view. But may be just an example of analogies being a bit shit for complex issues. " Yeah I agree, these tiresome analogies are indeed a bit shit and I should not indulge them. | |||
| |||
" My question still is unanswered, do you think Hamas made the right choice on Oct 7th? You're not seriously asking me that question in a country that criminalise positive opinion about Hamas? Are you? If you support the choice of Hamas to attack Oct 7th, what gives you the right to criticise Israel for starting its offensive? As I have mentioned previously, if you cannot accept that both sides have gone to far, this will never end. The Palestinians' are resisting occupation, ethnic cleansing, Prison death camp and now a genocide. Armed resistance is their basic human right according to international law, and according to any moral code of every single culture in the world. Only supremacists with double standards deny them that. When a big guy with a big stick supported by a gang of big guys with big sticks is rap*ing a woman, then she uses her nails to scratch him back in defense of herself, that doesn't give the grapist a right to exterminate her. If you think he does under the claim that he's defending himself, then you need to get your morals out the gutters Can you stay in the shallow end and stop diving in head first? I would say that the actions of Hamas on Oct 7th, have served them more harm than good, and surely even you can see this? I will tell you what will come from this, a tighter grip from Iran on Palestinians. You're obsessed with Iran. Some woman would rather fight to death before she gives in to her grapist. All your concern now is condemning her for resisting, and all she's getting from you is telling her: "cut down your terrorist nails, so that my guy can finish you at peace and without him getting being scratched" The Palestinians would rather die while putting up a fight, than die as cowards. " Hamas and Palestinians are seemingly easy to switch around at will, this is not a game. You might consider your arguments to be strong and you reasoning without flaws, and I have no reason to think they could be, if you resisted the urge of being omniscience and took a more holistic view. I think it would help you. | |||
| |||
"The majority of living Jews today are the descendants of those saved by Muslims from the Spanish inquisition and other massacres in Europe. " After our discussion about your belief that Adam was the first human and made from clay, it would be logical to say all people of the jewish faith are descendants of Adam? | |||
"The majority of living Jews today are the descendants of those saved by Muslims from the Spanish inquisition and other massacres in Europe. After our discussion about your belief that Adam was the first human and made from clay, it would be logical to say all people of the jewish faith are descendants of Adam?" 100% | |||
""The British were a colonial invader that occupied the land by force." "So were the Eqyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Arabs*, Ottomans. *Arab Muslims conquered the land and imposed Islam on the people." I am not on the side of Phero or the Assyrians, or the blood thirsty Romans. As for Arab Muslims, all they did is show up with few 1000's of warriors and the indigenous people (including the Jews at that time) were glad to join the fight to kick the oppressive Romans out their lands. Your claim that they forced Islam on the indigenous is ahistoric. Millions of Christians in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Armenians, Jews and Hindus, are a great testimony that under Islamic rule nobody was forced to convert. Unlike the Crusaders, inquisitors, Romans, European colonialism in every continent, Muslims never committed ethnic cleansing, genocide or burning people with their books for their beliefs and opinions. It's the only civilisation in human history that truly allowed freedom of religion. The conquered people under Islam had their living standards gone from very poor, treated as sclaves, super taxed, tortured to convert to Catholicism, illiterate to the exact opposite. They flourished and throughout the centuries they gradually converted to Islam. Take Algeria as an example. They were a super power before the French invasion, super rich, a booming society rich in culture, wealth and art. 100% of its people literate at a time literacy in Europe was less than 20%. European aristocratic women were bragging with Algerian hair style, dress fashion and Algerian nut styles of Jewelry. Then they got invaded by the "civilised" French People who tried to erase their identity, language, religion. They mass murdered millions upon millions throughout their occupation. A population similar in size to Egypt in 1830, with the same birth rate as Egypt, was reduced to a quarter of the Egyptian population in 130 years of occupation. And turn them so poor, the majority could hardly afford bread as lunch. With 95% illiterate in 1960. And then you read the French colonial literature how they civilised these heathen barbarians. The majority of living Jews today are the descendants of those saved by Muslims from the Spanish inquisition and other massacres in Europe. " Tolerance of other faiths was a practical matter. The Umayyad Caliphate ruled over a vast multiethnic and multicultural population. Christians, who still constituted a majority of the caliphate's population, and Jews were allowed to practice their own religion but had to pay the jizya (poll tax) from which Muslims were exempt. Makes you wonder where that tolerance went? | |||
""The British were a colonial invader that occupied the land by force." "So were the Eqyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Arabs*, Ottomans. *Arab Muslims conquered the land and imposed Islam on the people." I am not on the side of Phero or the Assyrians, or the blood thirsty Romans. As for Arab Muslims, all they did is show up with few 1000's of warriors and the indigenous people (including the Jews at that time) were glad to join the fight to kick the oppressive Romans out their lands. Your claim that they forced Islam on the indigenous is ahistoric. Millions of Christians in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Armenians, Jews and Hindus, are a great testimony that under Islamic rule nobody was forced to convert. Unlike the Crusaders, inquisitors, Romans, European colonialism in every continent, Muslims never committed ethnic cleansing, genocide or burning people with their books for their beliefs and opinions. It's the only civilisation in human history that truly allowed freedom of religion. The conquered people under Islam had their living standards gone from very poor, treated as sclaves, super taxed, tortured to convert to Catholicism, illiterate to the exact opposite. They flourished and throughout the centuries they gradually converted to Islam. Take Algeria as an example. They were a super power before the French invasion, super rich, a booming society rich in culture, wealth and art. 100% of its people literate at a time literacy in Europe was less than 20%. European aristocratic women were bragging with Algerian hair style, dress fashion and Algerian nut styles of Jewelry. Then they got invaded by the "civilised" French People who tried to erase their identity, language, religion. They mass murdered millions upon millions throughout their occupation. A population similar in size to Egypt in 1830, with the same birth rate as Egypt, was reduced to a quarter of the Egyptian population in 130 years of occupation. And turn them so poor, the majority could hardly afford bread as lunch. With 95% illiterate in 1960. And then you read the French colonial literature how they civilised these heathen barbarians. The majority of living Jews today are the descendants of those saved by Muslims from the Spanish inquisition and other massacres in Europe. Tolerance of other faiths was a practical matter. The Umayyad Caliphate ruled over a vast multiethnic and multicultural population. Christians, who still constituted a majority of the caliphate's population, and Jews were allowed to practice their own religion but had to pay the jizya (poll tax) from which Muslims were exempt. Makes you wonder where that tolerance went?" Glad to see you admit your claim of Islamic forced conversion en mass European style was a big fart. As for the tax (Djizia) non Muslims had to pay, they were very glad to pay it as it was a tiny fraction of the tax they had to pay under Roman or Persian rule. Also they were exempt from conscription. A privilege Muslims didn't have. Muslims paid a different religious tax called Zakat. They had their own independent courts, rulling according to their "Sharia" laws. And the right to educate their kids according to their values and faith. Something you can't say about the west today. | |||
""The British were a colonial invader that occupied the land by force." "So were the Eqyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Arabs*, Ottomans. *Arab Muslims conquered the land and imposed Islam on the people." I am not on the side of Phero or the Assyrians, or the blood thirsty Romans. As for Arab Muslims, all they did is show up with few 1000's of warriors and the indigenous people (including the Jews at that time) were glad to join the fight to kick the oppressive Romans out their lands. Your claim that they forced Islam on the indigenous is ahistoric. Millions of Christians in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Armenians, Jews and Hindus, are a great testimony that under Islamic rule nobody was forced to convert. Unlike the Crusaders, inquisitors, Romans, European colonialism in every continent, Muslims never committed ethnic cleansing, genocide or burning people with their books for their beliefs and opinions. It's the only civilisation in human history that truly allowed freedom of religion. The conquered people under Islam had their living standards gone from very poor, treated as sclaves, super taxed, tortured to convert to Catholicism, illiterate to the exact opposite. They flourished and throughout the centuries they gradually converted to Islam. Take Algeria as an example. They were a super power before the French invasion, super rich, a booming society rich in culture, wealth and art. 100% of its people literate at a time literacy in Europe was less than 20%. European aristocratic women were bragging with Algerian hair style, dress fashion and Algerian nut styles of Jewelry. Then they got invaded by the "civilised" French People who tried to erase their identity, language, religion. They mass murdered millions upon millions throughout their occupation. A population similar in size to Egypt in 1830, with the same birth rate as Egypt, was reduced to a quarter of the Egyptian population in 130 years of occupation. And turn them so poor, the majority could hardly afford bread as lunch. With 95% illiterate in 1960. And then you read the French colonial literature how they civilised these heathen barbarians. The majority of living Jews today are the descendants of those saved by Muslims from the Spanish inquisition and other massacres in Europe. Tolerance of other faiths was a practical matter. The Umayyad Caliphate ruled over a vast multiethnic and multicultural population. Christians, who still constituted a majority of the caliphate's population, and Jews were allowed to practice their own religion but had to pay the jizya (poll tax) from which Muslims were exempt. Makes you wonder where that tolerance went? Glad to see you admit your claim of Islamic forced conversion en mass European style was a big fart. As for the tax (Djizia) non Muslims had to pay, they were very glad to pay it as it was a tiny fraction of the tax they had to pay under Roman or Persian rule. Also they were exempt from conscription. A privilege Muslims didn't have. Muslims paid a different religious tax called Zakat. They had their own independent courts, rulling according to their "Sharia" laws. And the right to educate their kids according to their values and faith. Something you can't say about the west today. " Compare that 5% yearly Djizia tax to the 70% tax you pay today. Weakly or monthly. Only farting hasn't been taxed yet | |||
""The British were a colonial invader that occupied the land by force." "So were the Eqyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Arabs*, Ottomans. *Arab Muslims conquered the land and imposed Islam on the people." I am not on the side of Phero or the Assyrians, or the blood thirsty Romans. As for Arab Muslims, all they did is show up with few 1000's of warriors and the indigenous people (including the Jews at that time) were glad to join the fight to kick the oppressive Romans out their lands. Your claim that they forced Islam on the indigenous is ahistoric. Millions of Christians in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Armenians, Jews and Hindus, are a great testimony that under Islamic rule nobody was forced to convert. Unlike the Crusaders, inquisitors, Romans, European colonialism in every continent, Muslims never committed ethnic cleansing, genocide or burning people with their books for their beliefs and opinions. It's the only civilisation in human history that truly allowed freedom of religion. The conquered people under Islam had their living standards gone from very poor, treated as sclaves, super taxed, tortured to convert to Catholicism, illiterate to the exact opposite. They flourished and throughout the centuries they gradually converted to Islam. Take Algeria as an example. They were a super power before the French invasion, super rich, a booming society rich in culture, wealth and art. 100% of its people literate at a time literacy in Europe was less than 20%. European aristocratic women were bragging with Algerian hair style, dress fashion and Algerian nut styles of Jewelry. Then they got invaded by the "civilised" French People who tried to erase their identity, language, religion. They mass murdered millions upon millions throughout their occupation. A population similar in size to Egypt in 1830, with the same birth rate as Egypt, was reduced to a quarter of the Egyptian population in 130 years of occupation. And turn them so poor, the majority could hardly afford bread as lunch. With 95% illiterate in 1960. And then you read the French colonial literature how they civilised these heathen barbarians. The majority of living Jews today are the descendants of those saved by Muslims from the Spanish inquisition and other massacres in Europe. Tolerance of other faiths was a practical matter. The Umayyad Caliphate ruled over a vast multiethnic and multicultural population. Christians, who still constituted a majority of the caliphate's population, and Jews were allowed to practice their own religion but had to pay the jizya (poll tax) from which Muslims were exempt. Makes you wonder where that tolerance went? Glad to see you admit your claim of Islamic forced conversion en mass European style was a big fart. As for the tax (Djizia) non Muslims had to pay, they were very glad to pay it as it was a tiny fraction of the tax they had to pay under Roman or Persian rule. Also they were exempt from conscription. A privilege Muslims didn't have. Muslims paid a different religious tax called Zakat. They had their own independent courts, rulling according to their "Sharia" laws. And the right to educate their kids according to their values and faith. Something you can't say about the west today. Compare that 5% yearly Djizia tax to the 70% tax you pay today. Weakly or monthly. Only farting hasn't been taxed yet" They're probably trying to engineer a meter to put up people's arse's as we speak | |||
""The British were a colonial invader that occupied the land by force." "So were the Eqyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Arabs*, Ottomans. *Arab Muslims conquered the land and imposed Islam on the people." I am not on the side of Phero or the Assyrians, or the blood thirsty Romans. As for Arab Muslims, all they did is show up with few 1000's of warriors and the indigenous people (including the Jews at that time) were glad to join the fight to kick the oppressive Romans out their lands. Your claim that they forced Islam on the indigenous is ahistoric. Millions of Christians in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Armenians, Jews and Hindus, are a great testimony that under Islamic rule nobody was forced to convert. Unlike the Crusaders, inquisitors, Romans, European colonialism in every continent, Muslims never committed ethnic cleansing, genocide or burning people with their books for their beliefs and opinions. It's the only civilisation in human history that truly allowed freedom of religion. The conquered people under Islam had their living standards gone from very poor, treated as sclaves, super taxed, tortured to convert to Catholicism, illiterate to the exact opposite. They flourished and throughout the centuries they gradually converted to Islam. Take Algeria as an example. They were a super power before the French invasion, super rich, a booming society rich in culture, wealth and art. 100% of its people literate at a time literacy in Europe was less than 20%. European aristocratic women were bragging with Algerian hair style, dress fashion and Algerian nut styles of Jewelry. Then they got invaded by the "civilised" French People who tried to erase their identity, language, religion. They mass murdered millions upon millions throughout their occupation. A population similar in size to Egypt in 1830, with the same birth rate as Egypt, was reduced to a quarter of the Egyptian population in 130 years of occupation. And turn them so poor, the majority could hardly afford bread as lunch. With 95% illiterate in 1960. And then you read the French colonial literature how they civilised these heathen barbarians. The majority of living Jews today are the descendants of those saved by Muslims from the Spanish inquisition and other massacres in Europe. Tolerance of other faiths was a practical matter. The Umayyad Caliphate ruled over a vast multiethnic and multicultural population. Christians, who still constituted a majority of the caliphate's population, and Jews were allowed to practice their own religion but had to pay the jizya (poll tax) from which Muslims were exempt. Makes you wonder where that tolerance went? Glad to see you admit your claim of Islamic forced conversion en mass European style was a big fart. As for the tax (Djizia) non Muslims had to pay, they were very glad to pay it as it was a tiny fraction of the tax they had to pay under Roman or Persian rule. Also they were exempt from conscription. A privilege Muslims didn't have. Muslims paid a different religious tax called Zakat. They had their own independent courts, rulling according to their "Sharia" laws. And the right to educate their kids according to their values and faith. Something you can't say about the west today. Compare that 5% yearly Djizia tax to the 70% tax you pay today. Weakly or monthly. Only farting hasn't been taxed yet They're probably trying to engineer a meter to put up people's arse's as we speak " I think this is the first area (tax) you have brought up where many posters on here would agree with you. But my question remains. Where did the tolerance go? Why did the middle ages Caliphates tolerate Jews and Christians and why is that no longer the case? | |||
""The British were a colonial invader that occupied the land by force." "So were the Eqyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Arabs*, Ottomans. *Arab Muslims conquered the land and imposed Islam on the people." I am not on the side of Phero or the Assyrians, or the blood thirsty Romans. As for Arab Muslims, all they did is show up with few 1000's of warriors and the indigenous people (including the Jews at that time) were glad to join the fight to kick the oppressive Romans out their lands. Your claim that they forced Islam on the indigenous is ahistoric. Millions of Christians in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Armenians, Jews and Hindus, are a great testimony that under Islamic rule nobody was forced to convert. Unlike the Crusaders, inquisitors, Romans, European colonialism in every continent, Muslims never committed ethnic cleansing, genocide or burning people with their books for their beliefs and opinions. It's the only civilisation in human history that truly allowed freedom of religion. The conquered people under Islam had their living standards gone from very poor, treated as sclaves, super taxed, tortured to convert to Catholicism, illiterate to the exact opposite. They flourished and throughout the centuries they gradually converted to Islam. Take Algeria as an example. They were a super power before the French invasion, super rich, a booming society rich in culture, wealth and art. 100% of its people literate at a time literacy in Europe was less than 20%. European aristocratic women were bragging with Algerian hair style, dress fashion and Algerian nut styles of Jewelry. Then they got invaded by the "civilised" French People who tried to erase their identity, language, religion. They mass murdered millions upon millions throughout their occupation. A population similar in size to Egypt in 1830, with the same birth rate as Egypt, was reduced to a quarter of the Egyptian population in 130 years of occupation. And turn them so poor, the majority could hardly afford bread as lunch. With 95% illiterate in 1960. And then you read the French colonial literature how they civilised these heathen barbarians. The majority of living Jews today are the descendants of those saved by Muslims from the Spanish inquisition and other massacres in Europe. Tolerance of other faiths was a practical matter. The Umayyad Caliphate ruled over a vast multiethnic and multicultural population. Christians, who still constituted a majority of the caliphate's population, and Jews were allowed to practice their own religion but had to pay the jizya (poll tax) from which Muslims were exempt. Makes you wonder where that tolerance went? Glad to see you admit your claim of Islamic forced conversion en mass European style was a big fart. As for the tax (Djizia) non Muslims had to pay, they were very glad to pay it as it was a tiny fraction of the tax they had to pay under Roman or Persian rule. Also they were exempt from conscription. A privilege Muslims didn't have. Muslims paid a different religious tax called Zakat. They had their own independent courts, rulling according to their "Sharia" laws. And the right to educate their kids according to their values and faith. Something you can't say about the west today. Compare that 5% yearly Djizia tax to the 70% tax you pay today. Weakly or monthly. Only farting hasn't been taxed yet They're probably trying to engineer a meter to put up people's arse's as we speak I think this is the first area (tax) you have brought up where many posters on here would agree with you. But my question remains. Where did the tolerance go? Why did the middle ages Caliphates tolerate Jews and Christians and why is that no longer the case?" The entire Muslim world has been and still is under the rule of the west for the past 100 to 200 years, depending on the different times some parts were invaded. There is almost no independent Muslim country today. | |||
""The British were a colonial invader that occupied the land by force." "So were the Eqyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans, Arabs*, Ottomans. *Arab Muslims conquered the land and imposed Islam on the people." I am not on the side of Phero or the Assyrians, or the blood thirsty Romans. As for Arab Muslims, all they did is show up with few 1000's of warriors and the indigenous people (including the Jews at that time) were glad to join the fight to kick the oppressive Romans out their lands. Your claim that they forced Islam on the indigenous is ahistoric. Millions of Christians in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Armenians, Jews and Hindus, are a great testimony that under Islamic rule nobody was forced to convert. Unlike the Crusaders, inquisitors, Romans, European colonialism in every continent, Muslims never committed ethnic cleansing, genocide or burning people with their books for their beliefs and opinions. It's the only civilisation in human history that truly allowed freedom of religion. The conquered people under Islam had their living standards gone from very poor, treated as sclaves, super taxed, tortured to convert to Catholicism, illiterate to the exact opposite. They flourished and throughout the centuries they gradually converted to Islam. Take Algeria as an example. They were a super power before the French invasion, super rich, a booming society rich in culture, wealth and art. 100% of its people literate at a time literacy in Europe was less than 20%. European aristocratic women were bragging with Algerian hair style, dress fashion and Algerian nut styles of Jewelry. Then they got invaded by the "civilised" French People who tried to erase their identity, language, religion. They mass murdered millions upon millions throughout their occupation. A population similar in size to Egypt in 1830, with the same birth rate as Egypt, was reduced to a quarter of the Egyptian population in 130 years of occupation. And turn them so poor, the majority could hardly afford bread as lunch. With 95% illiterate in 1960. And then you read the French colonial literature how they civilised these heathen barbarians. The majority of living Jews today are the descendants of those saved by Muslims from the Spanish inquisition and other massacres in Europe. Tolerance of other faiths was a practical matter. The Umayyad Caliphate ruled over a vast multiethnic and multicultural population. Christians, who still constituted a majority of the caliphate's population, and Jews were allowed to practice their own religion but had to pay the jizya (poll tax) from which Muslims were exempt. Makes you wonder where that tolerance went? Glad to see you admit your claim of Islamic forced conversion en mass European style was a big fart. As for the tax (Djizia) non Muslims had to pay, they were very glad to pay it as it was a tiny fraction of the tax they had to pay under Roman or Persian rule. Also they were exempt from conscription. A privilege Muslims didn't have. Muslims paid a different religious tax called Zakat. They had their own independent courts, rulling according to their "Sharia" laws. And the right to educate their kids according to their values and faith. Something you can't say about the west today. Compare that 5% yearly Djizia tax to the 70% tax you pay today. Weakly or monthly. Only farting hasn't been taxed yet They're probably trying to engineer a meter to put up people's arse's as we speak I think this is the first area (tax) you have brought up where many posters on here would agree with you. But my question remains. Where did the tolerance go? Why did the middle ages Caliphates tolerate Jews and Christians and why is that no longer the case? The entire Muslim world has been and still is under the rule of the west for the past 100 to 200 years, depending on the different times some parts were invaded. There is almost no independent Muslim country today. " Western Christian values are not for wimps. | |||
| |||
" The entire Muslim world has been and still is under the rule of the west for the past 100 to 200 years, depending on the different times some parts were invaded. There is almost no independent Muslim country today. " You know that isn't true, but I think it should be true. We can't honestly go into a future where, for example, people get thrown from roofs or imprisoned because of who they choose to love. 7th century values do not belong in today's world. | |||
| |||
| |||
"A hadith quote attributed to the prophet: "The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: "Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah!, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!" Antisemitism is the Islamic dirty secret, and the only reason they never wanted Jews to rule in the Palestinian region - it was never just about land, but the type of people they wanted on that land. All the talk about Jews and Mualims getting on for centuries was conditional on them being second class citizens. " Quran Surah Al-Mumtahanah 7-8: "?In time,? Allah may bring about goodwill between you and those of them you ?now? hold as enemies. For Allah is Most Capable. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (8) Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair." Actions speak louder than hateful conspiracy theories. We have 1400 years track record to prove your hate conspiracies wrong. Ask any Jewish Historian, they'll admit themselves they had their intellectual and flourishing golden age under Islamic rule. Not now, not even during Soloman the Great. | |||
| |||
" The entire Muslim world has been and still is under the rule of the west for the past 100 to 200 years, depending on the different times some parts were invaded. There is almost no independent Muslim country today. You know that isn't true, but I think it should be true. We can't honestly go into a future where, for example, people get thrown from roofs or imprisoned because of who they choose to love. 7th century values do not belong in today's world. " We had 1400 years of detailed record and currently a couple countries ruling under Islamic law. Do you have any recorded event where gay people were thrown from roof tops? Leaving horor fictions aside we have a record of western civilisation current and past full of countless genocides, grapes, and sick supremacist culture. Out of 5 existing continents, 2 have had their entire populations exterminated, the 3rd had half it's population ensclaved, the 4rth have had 2 devastating world wars, a religious war that killed 30 million people and a western made communism that murdered 30 million more. The 5th had 20 million killed thanks to western ideology of communism, and millions more died in western wars of greedy invasions. And the past 30 years of war on Islam that murdered over 10 million inocent people, maimed and orphaned 10's of millions and caused the greatest refugee crisis in human history of 10's of millions war refugees. What a wonderful fruits | |||
" The entire Muslim world has been and still is under the rule of the west for the past 100 to 200 years, depending on the different times some parts were invaded. There is almost no independent Muslim country today. You know that isn't true, but I think it should be true. We can't honestly go into a future where, for example, people get thrown from roofs or imprisoned because of who they choose to love. 7th century values do not belong in today's world. We had 1400 years of detailed record and currently a couple countries ruling under Islamic law. Do you have any recorded event where gay people were thrown from roof tops? Leaving horor fictions aside we have a record of western civilisation current and past full of countless genocides, grapes, and sick supremacist culture. Out of 5 existing continents, 2 have had their entire populations exterminated, the 3rd had half it's population ensclaved, the 4rth have had 2 devastating world wars, a religious war that killed 30 million people and a western made communism that murdered 30 million more. The 5th had 20 million killed thanks to western ideology of communism, and millions more died in western wars of greedy invasions. And the past 30 years of war on Islam that murdered over 10 million inocent people, maimed and orphaned 10's of millions and caused the greatest refugee crisis in human history of 10's of millions war refugees. What a wonderful fruits" Forgot to mention the holocaust! Lol | |||
| |||
| |||
" Ask any Jewish Historian, they'll admit themselves they had their intellectual and flourishing golden age under Islamic rule. Not now, not even during Soloman the Great. " This is simply propaganda repeated by those who support Islamic rule and challenge Israel. Which years were these, exactly? A range of centuries will do. And in which countries? Challenge: Then, explain how you have defined "intellectual flourishing" and how it can be demonstrated. | |||
"Much of the Islamic world still has public executions and amputations. While recently banned, more than 90% of Egyptian women have undergone fgm. The penalty for homosexuality under Hamas is 10 years in prison. Israel is the only democracy and has women's rights and gay rights. " America has public execution, the UK had public execution up until 1998. Current countries that still have public execution: China, India, the United States, Singapore, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Japan, and Taiwan. So it's not "Much of the Islamic world" Not that it's a bad thing. I'd love to see a public execution of war criminals who do the public execution of millions of inocent people on live tv. "The penalty for homosexuality under Hamas is 10 years in prison." The penalty of being a Palestinian baby in the "Only democracy in the Mideast" is a Zionzi rain of missiles dropping the roof over his/her head.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"The US does not have public executions you doofus. Seriously, argue with facts or gtfo." They don't have death penalty? | |||
"America has public execution, the UK had public execution up until 1998." There you go again. Total disingenuous. The last person to be executed in the UK was in 1964. It was officially made illegal in the UK in 1998. It was not “public execution”. | |||
" They don't have death penalty? " They don't execute people in public. Neither do Japan. | |||
" They don't have death penalty? They don't execute people in public. Neither do Japan." So there is no audience during the execution? BS | |||
| |||
"Remind me how many millions of public executions the USA, UK and NATO allies did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Tchad, Somalia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Panama, Hiroshima and Nakazaki? " And currently in Palestine? | |||
"Remind me how many millions of public executions the USA, UK and NATO allies did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Tchad, Somalia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Panama, Hiroshima and Nakazaki? And currently in Palestine?" Oh yeah. Hamas occasionally executes in public. You should understand the definition of public execution. You're really stretching it to suit your ends. | |||
| |||
"Remind me how many millions of public executions the USA, UK and NATO allies did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Tchad, Somalia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Panama, Hiroshima and Nakazaki? And currently in Palestine? Oh yeah. Hamas occasionally executes in public. You should understand the definition of public execution. You're really stretching it to suit your ends." Only difference is the Public audience is now 8 billion people watching in horror and disbelief | |||
