FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > ICC seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu
ICC seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least it heads off the inevitable question that idiots fall over themselves to ask… “But do you condemn Hamas?”" Why is a person an idiot for asking whether someone condemn Hamas? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least it heads off the inevitable question that idiots fall over themselves to ask… “But do you condemn Hamas?” Why is a person an idiot for asking whether someone condemn Hamas? " Because it’s generally asked in response to someone saying something like ‘the IDF killing 14000 children in Gaza is horrific and unacceptable’. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least it heads off the inevitable question that idiots fall over themselves to ask… “But do you condemn Hamas?” Why is a person an idiot for asking whether someone condemn Hamas? Because it’s generally asked in response to someone saying something like ‘the IDF killing 14000 children in Gaza is horrific and unacceptable’." But do you con them with Hummus? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least it heads off the inevitable question that idiots fall over themselves to ask… “But do you condemn Hamas?” Why is a person an idiot for asking whether someone condemn Hamas? Because it’s generally asked in response to someone saying something like ‘the IDF killing 14000 children in Gaza is horrific and unacceptable’." The only time I have heard it being used like that is when a person seems oblivious to the impact hamas has had in this disaster, which was to start this deadly episode. However, I know what you mean about chanting or repeating phrases like sheep, "Shame on you", being my pet hate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do you think the ICC will achieve with these requests? It will also be a interesting to see if any country will enforce the arrest warrants." Yes. Will be interested to who does and doesn't! Especially with opposed individuals like those two | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least it heads off the inevitable question that idiots fall over themselves to ask… “But do you condemn Hamas?” Why is a person an idiot for asking whether someone condemn Hamas? Because it’s generally asked in response to someone saying something like ‘the IDF killing 14000 children in Gaza is horrific and unacceptable’." It's a totally fair question to ask. Israel's reasoning for what they do is that they want to take down Hamas. So any debate we have on this matter has to start by asking if we accept that Hamas should be taken down or not and then ask whether what they do is justified by their need to take down Hamas. That's why people get asked if they are would be happy if Hamas gets destroyed. All they have to do is to agree and we can move on with the debate on what's acceptable scale of offense and what's not. But if someone has a soft corner for Hamas, there is no point in having the debate after that because there is disagreement in the fundamental motive of Israel's offensive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least it heads off the inevitable question that idiots fall over themselves to ask… “But do you condemn Hamas?” Why is a person an idiot for asking whether someone condemn Hamas? " It's a loaded/one sided question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least it heads off the inevitable question that idiots fall over themselves to ask… “But do you condemn Hamas?” Why is a person an idiot for asking whether someone condemn Hamas? It's a loaded/one sided question. " A question that's very easily answerable if you think Hamas are terrorists. And yet.. Lots of people do not want to answer that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least it heads off the inevitable question that idiots fall over themselves to ask… “But do you condemn Hamas?” Why is a person an idiot for asking whether someone condemn Hamas? Because it’s generally asked in response to someone saying something like ‘the IDF killing 14000 children in Gaza is horrific and unacceptable’. It's a totally fair question to ask. Israel's reasoning for what they do is that they want to take down Hamas. So any debate we have on this matter has to start by asking if we accept that Hamas should be taken down or not and then ask whether what they do is justified by their need to take down Hamas. That's why people get asked if they are would be happy if Hamas gets destroyed. All they have to do is to agree and we can move on with the debate on what's acceptable scale of offense and what's not. But if someone has a soft corner for Hamas, there is no point in having the debate after that because there is disagreement in the fundamental motive of Israel's offensive." Yet oddly no one ever gets asked if they condemn Israel when they are criticising Hamas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least it heads off the inevitable question that idiots fall over themselves to ask… “But do you condemn Hamas?” Why is a person an idiot for asking whether someone condemn Hamas? Because it’s generally asked in response to someone saying something like ‘the IDF killing 14000 children in Gaza is horrific and unacceptable’. It's a totally fair question to ask. Israel's reasoning for what they do is that they want to take down Hamas. So any debate we have on this matter has to start by asking if we accept that Hamas should be taken down or not and then ask whether what they do is justified by their need to take down Hamas. That's why people get asked if they are would be happy if Hamas gets destroyed. All they have to do is to agree and we can move on with the debate on what's acceptable scale of offense and what's not. But if someone has a soft corner for Hamas, there is no point in having the debate after that because there is disagreement in the fundamental motive of Israel's offensive. Yet oddly no one ever gets asked if they condemn Israel when they are criticising Hamas." No one stops you from asking and people have been answering that honestly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least it heads off the inevitable question that idiots fall over themselves to ask… “But do you condemn Hamas?” Why is a person an idiot for asking whether someone condemn Hamas? Because it’s generally asked in response to someone saying something like ‘the IDF killing 14000 children in Gaza is horrific and unacceptable’." How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't use up to date figures? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just for balance as the OP only gives half the story… “The chief prosecutor of the international criminal court has said he is seeking arrest warrants for senior Hamas and Israeli officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant. Karim Khan said his office has applied to the world court’s pre-trial chamber for arrest warrants for the military and political leaders on both sides for crimes committed during Hamas’s 7 October attack and the ensuing war in Gaza. He named Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas chief in the Gaza Strip, and Mohammed Deif, the commander of its military wing, considered to be the masterminds of the 7 October assault, as well as Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of the group’s political bureau, who is based in Qatar, as wanted for crimes of extermination, murder, hostage taking, r@pe, sexual assault and torture.”" Doesn't the ICC have a warrant out for the Russian president? Another useless organisation as is the UN | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just for balance as the OP only gives half the story… “The chief prosecutor of the international criminal court has said he is seeking arrest warrants for senior Hamas and Israeli officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant. Karim Khan said his office has applied to the world court’s pre-trial chamber for arrest warrants for the military and political leaders on both sides for crimes committed during Hamas’s 7 October attack and the ensuing war in Gaza. He named Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas chief in the Gaza Strip, and Mohammed Deif, the commander of its military wing, considered to be the masterminds of the 7 October assault, as well as Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of the group’s political bureau, who is based in Qatar, as wanted for crimes of extermination, murder, hostage taking, r@pe, sexual assault and torture.” Doesn't the ICC have a warrant out for the Russian president? Another useless organisation as is the UN " Ah the UN. The organisation that had Saudi Arabia to lead women's rights forum 
I wonder whose money pays the salary for the people who run these jokes of organisations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what happens if the warrant is issued? Do they have the force to go through with it? Or is it just a stunt which these clowny international organisations usually do?" Both of your assumptions are correct, it's just posturing nonsense. The ICC have no jurisdiction over Israel who were not signatories to the 1998 Rome Statute, the formation of the ICC. Neither were the US, China and about a third of the rest of the world including most of the Middle East. This gravitas of this "arrest warrant" is on par with a Saudi court issuing an arrest warrant for a British girl wearing a mini-skirt in Macclesfield on a Saturday afternoon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How come Biden has not been issued a warrant He supplied 60,000 bombs to make 2 million homeless " That is commerce/Financial/military aide. It does however raise the question, how many times removed do you have to be before the responsibility fades? Consider; Mr X shoots his neighbour dead with a Colt 45 automatic. He is arrested. Should we also arrest the shop owner who sold it to him? The wholesaler who supplied the shop? The owners of the Colt Manufacturing Company? The man who designed the gun? The steel company who supplied the metal from which it was made? The company that excavated the ore from which the steel was made? and so on.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a joke LOL Issuing arrest warrants for any Terrorist or their organisation is a joke. Issuing arrest warrants for anyone attempting to defend themselves against terrorism is not a joke its simply ludicrous lol "Please help me here to understand your point of view here. Why is it a "joke"? The ICC is not known as a comedic organisation. Why is it "ludicrous"? Please consider this. Two men with knives stand amongst a crowd of 50 relatives; men, women and children. One man rushes out and violently stabs your wife. You reach for your M134 minigun which you keep to hand for self defence. You kill the first attacker but then turn on his relatives looking for his brother. You cannot see him so you start firing on the crowd. 5, 10, 15, 20 fall dead or injured. As you continue firing, a policeman nearby tries to stop you annihilating them all. Why would that policeman's actions be amusing to you? Hamas should not have attacked Israel. That attack does not give Israel the right to kill non-combatants with impunity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What a joke LOL Issuing arrest warrants for any Terrorist or their organisation is a joke. Issuing arrest warrants for anyone attempting to defend themselves against terrorism is not a joke its simply ludicrous lol
Please help me here to understand your point of view here.
Why is it a "joke"? The ICC is not known as a comedic organisation.
Why is it "ludicrous"?
Please consider this. Two men with knives stand amongst a crowd of 50 relatives; men, women and children. One man rushes out and violently stabs your wife.
You reach for your M134 minigun which you keep to hand for self defence. You kill the first attacker but then turn on his relatives looking for his brother. You cannot see him so you start firing on the crowd. 5, 10, 15, 20 fall dead or injured. As you continue firing, a policeman nearby tries to stop you annihilating them all. Why would that policeman's actions be amusing to you?
Hamas should not have attacked Israel. That attack does not give Israel the right to kill non-combatants with impunity. "Your analogy misses two important parts. The second person has taken an oath to kill you and your children too if given a chance. And many of the crowd are intentionally helping the second person to hide. I understand this issue itself not a joke as there are numerous lives involved. But ICC on the other hand can be. They don't have any force for themselves. They have to rely on other countries to do the arrests on their behalf, something which most countries will be unwilling to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hamas should not have attacked Israel. That attack does not give Israel the right to kill non-combatants with impunity. " The joke first of all is trying to get any terrorist organisation or its people is never going to happen. They simply hide behind civilians who are petrified to do anything else. Secondly, yes we all agree beyond any doubt that killing any civilians is very bad. But since the terrorists hide behind the fear they impose on civilians, there is very little anyone can do while going after them. Very sad, very wrong but to suggest arresting a Government attempting to protect their own people is ludicrous.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hamas should not have attacked Israel. That attack does not give Israel the right to kill non-combatants with impunity. The joke first of all is trying to get any terrorist organisation or its people is never going to happen. They simply hide behind civilians who are petrified to do anything else. Secondly, yes we all agree beyond any doubt that killing any civilians is very bad. But since the terrorists hide behind the fear they impose on civilians, there is very little anyone can do while going after them. Very sad, very wrong but to suggest arresting a Government attempting to protect their own people is ludicrous.." How is the mass slaughter of innocent civilians related to "a Government attempting to protect their own people"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is the mass slaughter of innocent civilians related to "a Government attempting to protect their own people"?" Ah not you again???? It was a long and tedious conversation with you the Israel forum. Anyone who knows you from that one knows you have a very sadistic and extremely ignorant side to your thoughts. Before you start again with accusing people of supporting mass murder, I'm just going to say, "I'm truly not going to partake in your conversations" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How is the mass slaughter of innocent civilians related to "a Government attempting to protect their own people"? Ah not you again???? It was a long and tedious conversation with you the Israel forum. Anyone who knows you from that one knows you have a very sadistic and extremely ignorant side to your thoughts. Before you start again with accusing people of supporting mass murder, I'm just going to say, "I'm truly not going to partake in your conversations"" If you're not able to answer, that's okay. No need for a string of personal insults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Shame they haven’t issued the same for Tony Blair and George Bush!" True LOL They accused them of having weapons of mass destruction lol and as it turned out there was absolutely no prove of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As for Hamas I cannot see how this would affect them as they have no political wing do they?, except for choosing were to live I suppose." Sadly it does have a so called political wing. They took control of Gaza after it won elections there in 2006. Since then, no elections have been held. They run their Politics with Fear and Brutality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As for Hamas I cannot see how this would affect them as they have no political wing do they?, except for choosing were to live I suppose. Sadly it does have a so called political wing. They took control of Gaza after it won elections there in 2006. Since then, no elections have been held. They run their Politics with Fear and Brutality. " I’m not in favour of Hamas, but it’s clearly more complicated than that. Israel and the US wouldn’t accept their 2006 democratic victory, Fatah still wanted control, civil war erupted, and they’ve been under a blockade since 2007. Some years ago (2018?) Hamas published an addendum to their fanatical founding document, which recognised that Palestine would only be within the 1967 borders (i.e. 22% of what they think should be Palestine). Whether it’s genuine, and has genuine backing, is hard to know - especially when we refuse to give them a voice. If we just assume that Hamas, and perhaps Palestinians as a whole, always make the wrong decisions and therefore Israel and US have to create their own bargaining unit within/aside from Palestinian society, we’ve kind of reached our conclusions without giving them a chance. I don’t know the answers, but I know it’s more complicated than it’s made out to be. And I know that negotiations are living things, during which parties change and move, if given a chance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As for Hamas I cannot see how this would affect them as they have no political wing do they?, except for choosing were to live I suppose. Sadly it does have a so called political wing. They took control of Gaza after it won elections there in 2006. Since then, no elections have been held. They run their Politics with Fear and Brutality. " I think that is a good thing that there is a political wing, if the IRA didn't have a political side we would still be being bombed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t know the answers, but I know it’s more complicated than it’s made out to be. And I know that negotiations are living things, during which parties change and move, if given a chance." Nope and we probably will never know the truth. While living in Oz I had a very good Israeli friend. When ever we spoke about Israel he always said "He is an Arab" lol. When asking him about Palestine his answer was, "What and who is Palestine". I did have a look online about Palestine and, not sure how true lol due to the workings of the internet lol, but there was no such thing called Palestine. It was a name given for all of the areas by the Romans when they went in there. They found no one or only a few living in the area now Israel area and left. When talking to my Arab friend after the Hamas attack in October, fortunately his family were all ok and still living in the Northern area of Israel. But said he simply can't understand how idiots would do mass murder in the name of religion. I would suggest though, that Hamas never fairly won any election and it was taken by causing fear of the Civilians over there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t know the answers, but I know it’s more complicated than it’s made out to be. And I know that negotiations are living things, during which parties change and move, if given a chance. Nope and we probably will never know the truth. While living in Oz I had a very good Israeli friend. When ever we spoke about Israel he always said "He is an Arab" lol. When asking him about Palestine his answer was, "What and who is Palestine". I did have a look online about Palestine and, not sure how true lol due to the workings of the internet lol, but there was no such thing called Palestine. It was a name given for all of the areas by the Romans when they went in there. They found no one or only a few living in the area now Israel area and left. When talking to my Arab friend after the Hamas attack in October, fortunately his family were all ok and still living in the Northern area of Israel. But said he simply can't understand how idiots would do mass murder in the name of religion. I would suggest though, that Hamas never fairly won any election and it was taken by causing fear of the Civilians over there." So Britian wasn't named Britannia it was formerly called Palestine? Spain wasn't Hispania it was Palestine? And so on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t know the answers, but I know it’s more complicated than it’s made out to be. And I know that negotiations are living things, during which parties change and move, if given a chance. Nope and we probably will never know the truth. While living in Oz I had a very good Israeli friend. When ever we spoke about Israel he always said "He is an Arab" lol. When asking him about Palestine his answer was, "What and who is Palestine". I did have a look online about Palestine and, not sure how true lol due to the workings of the internet lol, but there was no such thing called Palestine. It was a name given for all of the areas by the Romans when they went in there. They found no one or only a few living in the area now Israel area and left. When talking to my Arab friend after the Hamas attack in October, fortunately his family were all ok and still living in the Northern area of Israel. But said he simply can't understand how idiots would do mass murder in the name of religion. I would suggest though, that Hamas never fairly won any election and it was taken by causing fear of the Civilians over there. So Britian wasn't named Britannia it was formerly called Palestine? Spain wasn't Hispania it was Palestine? And so on." It was used as an insult to the Israelis after kicking them out of Judea. The Romans called it Palentina Syria. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Britian wasn't named Britannia it was formerly called Palestine? Spain wasn't Hispania it was Palestine? And so on."  
Ummm Say What LOL | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So Britian wasn't named Britannia it was formerly called Palestine? Spain wasn't Hispania it was Palestine? And so on.
Ummm Say What LOL"You have to get used to stuff like this here. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As for Hamas I cannot see how this would affect them as they have no political wing do they?, except for choosing were to live I suppose. Sadly it does have a so called political wing. They took control of Gaza after it won elections there in 2006. Since then, no elections have been held. They run their Politics with Fear and Brutality. I think that is a good thing that there is a political wing, if the IRA didn't have a political side we would still be being bombed." The IRA had a political wing whilst they were actively bombing. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Ummm Say What LOL
You have to get used to stuff like this here.
Mrs x"True | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least it heads off the inevitable question that idiots fall over themselves to ask… “But do you condemn Hamas?” Why is a person an idiot for asking whether someone condemn Hamas? Because it’s generally asked in response to someone saying something like ‘the IDF killing 14000 children in Gaza is horrific and unacceptable’. It's a totally fair question to ask. Israel's reasoning for what they do is that they want to take down Hamas. So any debate we have on this matter has to start by asking if we accept that Hamas should be taken down or not and then ask whether what they do is justified by their need to take down Hamas. That's why people get asked if they are would be happy if Hamas gets destroyed. All they have to do is to agree and we can move on with the debate on what's acceptable scale of offense and what's not. But if someone has a soft corner for Hamas, there is no point in having the debate after that because there is disagreement in the fundamental motive of Israel's offensive." The interview that pearce morgan had with mosab hassan yousef was interesting. I would say that he gives an accurate description of what hamas is too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has this gone through now? last I read (this morning) was that the prosecutor is seeking the warrants but it needs to be approved, I think possibly by judges, though not sure on that. I would imagine he would not have put it forward without a very very good chance of being accepted." No it's not gone through. Most people on here have obviously just read a headline without actually reading any further. It could take months and months if it's even granted at all. Even if it is granted Isreal never signed upto it, so are out of there Jurisdiction. Palestinian did however sign upto it so it but I doubt hammas would be handing themselves in if the arrest warrants are granted.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The interview that pearce morgan had with mosab hassan yousef was interesting. I would say that he gives an accurate description of what hamas is too." Just watched it and yes very interesting. But there will be some that will disagree lol. My Israeli Arab friend pretty much said the same thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"this is a sex site we are here for escapism .. " True but this particular Forum is in the Politics Section and this particular Forum is Headed "ICC seeks arrest warrants against Sinwar and Netanyahu" Not sure the Topic here is about sex | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t know the answers, but I know it’s more complicated than it’s made out to be. And I know that negotiations are living things, during which parties change and move, if given a chance. Nope and we probably will never know the truth. While living in Oz I had a very good Israeli friend. When ever we spoke about Israel he always said "He is an Arab" lol. When asking him about Palestine his answer was, "What and who is Palestine". I did have a look online about Palestine and, not sure how true lol due to the workings of the internet lol, but there was no such thing called Palestine. It was a name given for all of the areas by the Romans when they went in there. They found no one or only a few living in the area now Israel area and left. When talking to my Arab friend after the Hamas attack in October, fortunately his family were all ok and still living in the Northern area of Israel. But said he simply can't understand how idiots would do mass murder in the name of religion. I would suggest though, that Hamas never fairly won any election and it was taken by causing fear of the Civilians over there. So Britian wasn't named Britannia it was formerly called Palestine? Spain wasn't Hispania it was Palestine? And so on.It was used as an insult to the Israelis after kicking them out of Judea. The Romans called it Palentina Syria. Mrs x" Except that Palestine comes from Philistine, the nation who were around that area around the time of the (perhaps mythical) King David, 3,000 years ago. And the Greek historian Herodotus called it Palestine. Etc. And is it suggested that the Jews were completely kicked out of the area when they destroyed the temple? We know that’s not true as one version of the Talmud was written there, completed around 400CE. It’s also quite likely that many people remained and converted first to Christianity and then to Islam. Hence the Arabs who were living in the area from the 7th century until 1948 were Palestinians. But I think this is quite a tangent - does the right or wrongness of these arrest warrants really depend on whether Romans called the area Palestine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t know the answers, but I know it’s more complicated than it’s made out to be. And I know that negotiations are living things, during which parties change and move, if given a chance. Nope and we probably will never know the truth. While living in Oz I had a very good Israeli friend. When ever we spoke about Israel he always said "He is an Arab" lol. When asking him about Palestine his answer was, "What and who is Palestine". I did have a look online about Palestine and, not sure how true lol due to the workings of the internet lol, but there was no such thing called Palestine. It was a name given for all of the areas by the Romans when they went in there. They found no one or only a few living in the area now Israel area and left. When talking to my Arab friend after the Hamas attack in October, fortunately his family were all ok and still living in the Northern area of Israel. But said he simply can't understand how idiots would do mass murder in the name of religion. I would suggest though, that Hamas never fairly won any election and it was taken by causing fear of the Civilians over there. So Britian wasn't named Britannia it was formerly called Palestine? Spain wasn't Hispania it was Palestine? And so on.It was used as an insult to the Israelis after kicking them out of Judea. The Romans called it Palentina Syria. Mrs x Except that Palestine comes from Philistine, the nation who were around that area around the time of the (perhaps mythical) King David, 3,000 years ago. And the Greek historian Herodotus called it Palestine. Etc. And is it suggested that the Jews were completely kicked out of the area when they destroyed the temple? We know that’s not true as one version of the Talmud was written there, completed around 400CE. It’s also quite likely that many people remained and converted first to Christianity and then to Islam. Hence the Arabs who were living in the area from the 7th century until 1948 were Palestinians. But I think this is quite a tangent - does the right or wrongness of these arrest warrants really depend on whether Romans called the area Palestine? " What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x" Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none" I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them." But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x" Hasn't forgotten even, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? " The international community hasn't forgotten them. " Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. " Yep " But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x" Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. " I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x" Yes. It was an example. I'm not criticising you for being one sided. Just that you accuse others of it when you are doing that exact thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mrs x" Please don't partake in conversation with this guy. He will start accusing you of all sorts of Horrific things. Have a look at his comments on the Israel Forum now closed as to full. He never listens to anyone or any suggestions and only believes he is fully correct no matter how much Logic you attempt to give him. Better to just Ignore him" I'm aware of certain posters leanings, methods and sympathies. But thanks for the heads up. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mrs x" Please don't partake in conversation with this guy. He will start accusing you of all sorts of Horrific things. Have a look at his comments on the Israel Forum now closed as to full. He never listens to anyone or any suggestions and only believes he is fully correct no matter how much Logic you attempt to give him. Better to just Ignore him" Just to be clear. You've thrown personal insults my way, been rude and made up bullshit about me. This being a prime example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x Yes. It was an example. I'm not criticising you for being one sided. Just that you accuse others of it when you are doing that exact thing." I don't, you use terms, phrases and words to illicit a response you can then jump on to virtue signal. 'Mass slaughter' is one such phrase. You know its not really the case but you like to try and trigger others. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x Yes. It was an example. I'm not criticising you for being one sided. Just that you accuse others of it when you are doing that exact thing. I don't, you use terms, phrases and words to illicit a response you can then jump on to virtue signal. 'Mass slaughter' is one such phrase. You know its not really the case but you like to try and trigger others. Mrs x" Mass slaughter seems to be an accurate term. I'll use another if there is something you'd prefer? And opposing the large scale killings of civilians can hardly be called a virtual signal. That's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, should we try to stay on topic? The ICC news. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x Yes. It was an example. I'm not criticising you for being one sided. Just that you accuse others of it when you are doing that exact thing. I don't, you use terms, phrases and words to illicit a response you can then jump on to virtue signal. 'Mass slaughter' is one such phrase. You know its not really the case but you like to try and trigger others. Mrs x Mass slaughter seems to be an accurate term. I'll use another if there is something you'd prefer? And opposing the large scale killings of civilians can hardly be called a virtual signal. That's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, should we try to stay on topic? The ICC news." Casualties of war would be preferable and much more accurate. And it is on topic. If you are going to discuss a legal case you should really use well defined language. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lol" I know x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Still surprised there was no Transponder working on it." Aircraft carrying high value targets in volatile areas tend not to want to advertise their position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Aircraft carrying high value targets in volatile areas tend not to want to advertise their position." True, didn't think of that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x Yes. It was an example. I'm not criticising you for being one sided. Just that you accuse others of it when you are doing that exact thing. I don't, you use terms, phrases and words to illicit a response you can then jump on to virtue signal. 'Mass slaughter' is one such phrase. You know its not really the case but you like to try and trigger others. Mrs x Mass slaughter seems to be an accurate term. I'll use another if there is something you'd prefer? And opposing the large scale killings of civilians can hardly be called a virtual signal. That's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, should we try to stay on topic? The ICC news.Casualties of war would be preferable and much more accurate. And it is on topic. If you are going to discuss a legal case you should really use well defined language. Mrs x" In what sense is “casualties of war” more accurate? It’s clearly a loaded term used by one side to imply the deaths are unavoidable collateral damage of a just war. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x Yes. It was an example. I'm not criticising you for being one sided. Just that you accuse others of it when you are doing that exact thing. I don't, you use terms, phrases and words to illicit a response you can then jump on to virtue signal. 'Mass slaughter' is one such phrase. You know its not really the case but you like to try and trigger others. Mrs x Mass slaughter seems to be an accurate term. I'll use another if there is something you'd prefer? And opposing the large scale killings of civilians can hardly be called a virtual signal. That's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, should we try to stay on topic? The ICC news.Casualties of war would be preferable and much more accurate. And it is on topic. If you are going to discuss a legal case you should really use well defined language. Mrs x In what sense is “casualties of war” more accurate? It’s clearly a loaded term used by one side to imply the deaths are unavoidable collateral damage of a just war. " Slaughter could relate to the killing of a variety of circumstances. It doesn't require a war to actually account for any deaths. Casualties of War actually require a war. The legality of any killings will be discussed by the appropriate legal counsel at the appropriate time. Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x Yes. It was an example. I'm not criticising you for being one sided. Just that you accuse others of it when you are doing that exact thing. I don't, you use terms, phrases and words to illicit a response you can then jump on to virtue signal. 'Mass slaughter' is one such phrase. You know its not really the case but you like to try and trigger others. Mrs x Mass slaughter seems to be an accurate term. I'll use another if there is something you'd prefer? And opposing the large scale killings of civilians can hardly be called a virtual signal. That's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, should we try to stay on topic? The ICC news.Casualties of war would be preferable and much more accurate. And it is on topic. If you are going to discuss a legal case you should really use well defined language. Mrs x In what sense is “casualties of war” more accurate? It’s clearly a loaded term used by one side to imply the deaths are unavoidable collateral damage of a just war. Slaughter could relate to the killing of a variety of circumstances. It doesn't require a war to actually account for any deaths. Casualties of War actually require a war. The legality of any killings will be discussed by the appropriate legal counsel at the appropriate time. Mrs x" Fine, would you be happier with the phrase "casualties of war" to be used to describe the mass number of people being slaughtered? I'm not concerned about the language being used, I'm concerned about what's happening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has this gone through now? last I read (this morning) was that the prosecutor is seeking the warrants but it needs to be approved, I think possibly by judges, though not sure on that. I would imagine he would not have put it forward without a very very good chance of being accepted. No it's not gone through. Most people on here have obviously just read a headline without actually reading any further. It could take months and months if it's even granted at all. Even if it is granted Isreal never signed upto it, so are out of there Jurisdiction. Palestinian did however sign upto it so it but I doubt hammas would be handing themselves in if the arrest warrants are granted.." Bit of a half story at best then especially as you say Israel are not signed up to it. That said would it impede those accused in the future if they visited a country that is signed up. By this I mean, as an example, if the Israeli leader visits the UK in years to come and assuming the UK are signed up to this, then is the UK duty bound to arrest that person or is that more crazy thinking on my part | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x Yes. It was an example. I'm not criticising you for being one sided. Just that you accuse others of it when you are doing that exact thing. I don't, you use terms, phrases and words to illicit a response you can then jump on to virtue signal. 'Mass slaughter' is one such phrase. You know its not really the case but you like to try and trigger others. Mrs x Mass slaughter seems to be an accurate term. I'll use another if there is something you'd prefer? And opposing the large scale killings of civilians can hardly be called a virtual signal. That's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, should we try to stay on topic? The ICC news.Casualties of war would be preferable and much more accurate. And it is on topic. If you are going to discuss a legal case you should really use well defined language. Mrs x In what sense is “casualties of war” more accurate? It’s clearly a loaded term used by one side to imply the deaths are unavoidable collateral damage of a just war. Slaughter could relate to the killing of a variety of circumstances. It doesn't require a war to actually account for any deaths. Casualties of War actually require a war. The legality of any killings will be discussed by the appropriate legal counsel at the appropriate time. Mrs x Fine, would you be happier with the phrase "casualties of war" to be used to describe the mass number of people being slaughtered? I'm not concerned about the language being used, I'm concerned about what's happening. " But people aren't being slaughtered, this does not require a war. So what would you choose to describe the killings, since this is a war? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x Yes. It was an example. I'm not criticising you for being one sided. Just that you accuse others of it when you are doing that exact thing. I don't, you use terms, phrases and words to illicit a response you can then jump on to virtue signal. 'Mass slaughter' is one such phrase. You know its not really the case but you like to try and trigger others. Mrs x Mass slaughter seems to be an accurate term. I'll use another if there is something you'd prefer? And opposing the large scale killings of civilians can hardly be called a virtual signal. That's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, should we try to stay on topic? The ICC news.Casualties of war would be preferable and much more accurate. And it is on topic. If you are going to discuss a legal case you should really use well defined language. Mrs x In what sense is “casualties of war” more accurate? It’s clearly a loaded term used by one side to imply the deaths are unavoidable collateral damage of a just war. Slaughter could relate to the killing of a variety of circumstances. It doesn't require a war to actually account for any deaths. Casualties of War actually require a war. The legality of any killings will be discussed by the appropriate legal counsel at the appropriate time. Mrs x Fine, would you be happier with the phrase "casualties of war" to be used to describe the mass number of people being slaughtered? I'm not concerned about the language being used, I'm concerned about what's happening. But people aren't being slaughtered, this does not require a war. So what would you choose to describe the killings, since this is a war? Mrs x" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x Yes. It was an example. I'm not criticising you for being one sided. Just that you accuse others of it when you are doing that exact thing. I don't, you use terms, phrases and words to illicit a response you can then jump on to virtue signal. 'Mass slaughter' is one such phrase. You know its not really the case but you like to try and trigger others. Mrs x Mass slaughter seems to be an accurate term. I'll use another if there is something you'd prefer? And opposing the large scale killings of civilians can hardly be called a virtual signal. That's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, should we try to stay on topic? The ICC news.Casualties of war would be preferable and much more accurate. And it is on topic. If you are going to discuss a legal case you should really use well defined language. Mrs x In what sense is “casualties of war” more accurate? It’s clearly a loaded term used by one side to imply the deaths are unavoidable collateral damage of a just war. Slaughter could relate to the killing of a variety of circumstances. It doesn't require a war to actually account for any deaths. Casualties of War actually require a war. The legality of any killings will be discussed by the appropriate legal counsel at the appropriate time. Mrs x Fine, would you be happier with the phrase "casualties of war" to be used to describe the mass number of people being slaughtered? I'm not concerned about the language being used, I'm concerned about what's happening. But people aren't being slaughtered, this does not require a war. So what would you choose to describe the killings, since this is a war? Mrs x" I just checked the definition of "slaughter". The first reference is to animals/livestock. The second is. "killing of great numbers of human beings (as in battle or a massacre)" This seems like an accurate term for the vast numbers of human beings being killed in Gaza. I will use some other term if it means we can discuss what's going on without the distraction of which word is used to describe the large number of civilians being killed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What has what the Romans called the area got anything to do with the arrest warrants? Mrs x Absolutely Zilch lol Just people wanting to go off on a tangent. I personally don't think the Arrest Warrants will have any significant affects. Israel didn't sign up for any of that nor, I believe US. As far as Hamas are concerned, they did sign up on it but if anyone believes they will hand anyone over for Arrest is pretty slim to none I agree, I don't think anything will come of these. But for the civilians being mass slaughtered in Palestine it might give them some hope that elements of the international community hasn't forgotten about them.But nothing about the mass slaughter of Israeli children by Hamas? The international community hasn't forgotten them. Over 10,000 indiscriminate missiles launched at Israelis since coming to power. 10,000 is a huge number. Yep But no mention of these casualties. Glad to see two arrest warrants being applied for against Hamas, not that it will mean shit but at least it let's the International community know it has forgotten Israels children. Mrs x Yes. The international community is rightly outraged about what happened that day. You seem to accuse me of being one sided. Yet your posts are very one sided, and constantly seem to deflect from what's going on in Palestine. I can't believe it needs spelling out. But those of us who oppose the mass killings of civilians regardless of their ethnicity/religion/nationality etc don't need to reference every atrocity back to the 1940s when discussing the current situation. I'm not going back to the 1940s. I'm referencing the atrocities committed by Hamas since they took control of Gaza in 2005. That's pretty relevant I think, since it's the current terrorist regime attack Israel. Mrs x Yes. It was an example. I'm not criticising you for being one sided. Just that you accuse others of it when you are doing that exact thing. I don't, you use terms, phrases and words to illicit a response you can then jump on to virtue signal. 'Mass slaughter' is one such phrase. You know its not really the case but you like to try and trigger others. Mrs x Mass slaughter seems to be an accurate term. I'll use another if there is something you'd prefer? And opposing the large scale killings of civilians can hardly be called a virtual signal. That's a bit of a stretch. Anyway, should we try to stay on topic? The ICC news.Casualties of war would be preferable and much more accurate. And it is on topic. If you are going to discuss a legal case you should really use well defined language. Mrs x In what sense is “casualties of war” more accurate? It’s clearly a loaded term used by one side to imply the deaths are unavoidable collateral damage of a just war. Slaughter could relate to the killing of a variety of circumstances. It doesn't require a war to actually account for any deaths. Casualties of War actually require a war. The legality of any killings will be discussed by the appropriate legal counsel at the appropriate time. Mrs x Fine, would you be happier with the phrase "casualties of war" to be used to describe the mass number of people being slaughtered? I'm not concerned about the language being used, I'm concerned about what's happening. But people aren't being slaughtered, this does not require a war. So what would you choose to describe the killings, since this is a war? Mrs x This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder." When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them." You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Someone should open a Forum for this sort of discussion. Something like Casualties of War, Or? lol. I'm sure many here would love that Forum" You seem to be lolling lots about the mass slaughter/casualties of war. Fill your boots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. " I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lol No one is laughing about the casualties of war but more on how difficult it is to have any type of discussion with swapping ideas without accusing each other of being supportive of mass murder. But it seems to annoy you so,,, all the best to you lol" I don't find it funny at all. Posting "lol" over and over again isn't a better way to "swap ideas" and have a "discussion". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is." So you want to be able to use the very contentious word "murder" in a thread about an arrest warrant from the ICC in a politics forum, which is literally about the guilt of key actors... But if people object, you want to say "but the dead people...!"? Engaging, or not engaging, in semantics isn't bringing them back. You would hate the legal process... So much revolves around definitions and whether they've been met. Especially in the ICC. Hint: use a less contentious word, to bring the focus onto the tragedy, rather than implicitly pass judgement on the object of the thread. If you want to engage with guilt and culpability, then you will necessarily be playing with semantics, where the test of guilt is whether a strict definition has been met. Moreover, the argument of some is that Hamas is cynically (at least jointly) responsible for excess deaths due to their use of humanitarian facilities and human shields. By calling the actions of Israel "planned and deliberate murder", it potentially sidesteps this position (and invites disagreement). Imagine you're in court because you drove dangerously and accidentally killed someone. You would want your barrister to object should the prosecution aske, "were you paying attention when you murdered the pedestrian?". That's not semantics, it's material. There is no question that there are a regrettable number of excessive civilian deaths (and an immeasurable and unnecessary amount of suffering) in this war. The manner of, intent behind and culpability for those deaths, however, is very material to the ICC case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. So you want to be able to use the very contentious word "murder" in a thread about an arrest warrant from the ICC in a politics forum, which is literally about the guilt of key actors... But if people object, you want to say "but the dead people...!"? Engaging, or not engaging, in semantics isn't bringing them back. You would hate the legal process... So much revolves around definitions and whether they've been met. Especially in the ICC. Hint: use a less contentious word, to bring the focus onto the tragedy, rather than implicitly pass judgement on the object of the thread. If you want to engage with guilt and culpability, then you will necessarily be playing with semantics, where the test of guilt is whether a strict definition has been met. Moreover, the argument of some is that Hamas is cynically (at least jointly) responsible for excess deaths due to their use of humanitarian facilities and human shields. By calling the actions of Israel "planned and deliberate murder", it potentially sidesteps this position (and invites disagreement). Imagine you're in court because you drove dangerously and accidentally killed someone. You would want your barrister to object should the prosecution aske, "were you paying attention when you murdered the pedestrian?". That's not semantics, it's material. There is no question that there are a regrettable number of excessive civilian deaths (and an immeasurable and unnecessary amount of suffering) in this war. The manner of, intent behind and culpability for those deaths, however, is very material to the ICC case." I get your point, but we're not in court, events are taking place before our very eyes : murder, genocide, slaughter .....whatever words you choose. Words have the power to shock, and the world needs shocking out of it's complacency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone know if the ICC made any comments on the Iran Helicopter crash" Why would they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would they? " I rarely listen to the News due to their false propaganda stories. But do ask the questions every so often. My thoughts are if they have made any comments on the Crash, there might be cause for legal action against some country or countries | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why would they? I rarely listen to the News due to their false propaganda stories. " This explains a lot. " But do ask the questions every so often. My thoughts are if they have made any comments on the Crash, there might be cause for legal action against some country or countries" ICC "the ICC investigates and, where warranted, tries individuals charged with the gravest of crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression". Not sure what "crime of aggression" refers to. But you get the idea. Helicopter crashes aren't on their agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also a Deep Pathological desire to get back to the Forum Topic and Off the Hallucination's we are hearing more of on here" As evidenced by posting "lol" lots and asking tangentical questions about a helicopter crash? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm maybe to someone with a very simple and narrow mind. If the Helicopter came down due to a Militant group then that is a Crime and I'm pretty sure all would be interested to know." Any evidence you can share with us? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any evidence you can share with us?" Say What?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmmm maybe to someone with a very simple and narrow mind. If the Helicopter came down due to a Militant group then that is a Crime and I'm pretty sure all would be interested to know." Not the ICC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is." Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered." Do we know this is a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza? For avoidance of doubt I am not supporting the actions of the Israeli Govt and the IDF. But ethnically cleanse? Really? As said very eloquently above (I think it was this thread) you cannot disaggregate the tactics of Hamas from the horrific outcome that is happening. Hamas ARE using the civilian population as human shields. The IDF do appear to be indiscriminate in their tactics (although some will point to warnings being given in advance of attacks). I think any implication that only one side is to blame or only one side is evil in all this is either naive or partisan. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered. Do we know this is a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza? For avoidance of doubt I am not supporting the actions of the Israeli Govt and the IDF. But ethnically cleanse? Really? As said very eloquently above (I think it was this thread) you cannot disaggregate the tactics of Hamas from the horrific outcome that is happening. Hamas ARE using the civilian population as human shields. The IDF do appear to be indiscriminate in their tactics (although some will point to warnings being given in advance of attacks). I think any implication that only one side is to blame or only one side is evil in all this is either naive or partisan." If the IDF aren't deliberately targeting civilians, with their state of the art high-tech weaponry, the sheer volume of innocent people killed is suspect. Doesn't seem to add up that they are hitting a few people indiscriminately, and doesn't explain cutting off water supply etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered." You illustrate the point beautifully. It is only semantics where there is a shared presumption that there is a "very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza". Where people do not share that presumption, then statements like this actually prevent further discussion, since they implicitly ask all participants in that discussion to agree with this premise as a precursor. While this language works well in online echo chambers, it falls down somewhat when people with wildly differing opinions are involved. People can't get past "the semantics". It puts people in a position where they either (a) implicitly agree with a premise that they find disagreeable, or (b) get accused of playing semantics where there is a horrific amount of death and suffering. If you were of the opinion (which of course you aren't, and that's fine) that Hamas is mostly to blame by hiding behind civilians and using humanitarian facilities as shelter/logistical hubs, or even that Israel is not deliberately murdering civilians, how would you have the room to engage in discussion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered. Do we know this is a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza? For avoidance of doubt I am not supporting the actions of the Israeli Govt and the IDF. But ethnically cleanse? Really? As said very eloquently above (I think it was this thread) you cannot disaggregate the tactics of Hamas from the horrific outcome that is happening. Hamas ARE using the civilian population as human shields. The IDF do appear to be indiscriminate in their tactics (although some will point to warnings being given in advance of attacks). I think any implication that only one side is to blame or only one side is evil in all this is either naive or partisan." I don’t for one second say that only one side is to blame, but what is happening now is akin to if the British government had chosen to bomb Catholic neighbourhoods to rubble in response to IRA terrorist attacks. And I think making it impossible for Palestinians to safely live in Gaza is ethnic cleansing, and that’s what the Israeli government is doing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered. Do we know this is a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza? For avoidance of doubt I am not supporting the actions of the Israeli Govt and the IDF. But ethnically cleanse? Really? As said very eloquently above (I think it was this thread) you cannot disaggregate the tactics of Hamas from the horrific outcome that is happening. Hamas ARE using the civilian population as human shields. The IDF do appear to be indiscriminate in their tactics (although some will point to warnings being given in advance of attacks). I think any implication that only one side is to blame or only one side is evil in all this is either naive or partisan. If the IDF aren't deliberately targeting civilians, with their state of the art high-tech weaponry, the sheer volume of innocent people killed is suspect. Doesn't seem to add up that they are hitting a few people indiscriminately, and doesn't explain cutting off water supply etc. " Johnny none of us can say for sure as none of us are on the ground or party to decision making or chain of command. I think it is relatively safe to assume that there are elements of the IDF who have acted indiscriminately but we cannot simply assume that is military policy or strategy. The counter argument is that the IDF have issued warnings (I doubt in all cases) of an impending attack on an area. Hamas ARE hiding amongst the civilian population. I doubt they are easy to distinguish from those civilians. So that makes Hamas complicit in the deaths of civilians. On the one hand I understand why Israel felt the need to respond with force to the 7 Oct attack. On the other I believe their response is increasingly disproportional and international condemnation is growing as a result. Personally I am very comfortable condemning both the Israeli govt (and IDF) AND Hamas. From the comfort of my safe UK home of course where in all honesty I am nothing more than a spectator to the horrors that have happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The interview that pearce morgan had with mosab hassan yousef was interesting. I would say that he gives an accurate description of what hamas is too. Just watched it and yes very interesting. But there will be some that will disagree lol. My Israeli Arab friend pretty much said the same thing." Yes, there will be those who do that, it is good they said the same too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered. Do we know this is a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza? For avoidance of doubt I am not supporting the actions of the Israeli Govt and the IDF. But ethnically cleanse? Really? As said very eloquently above (I think it was this thread) you cannot disaggregate the tactics of Hamas from the horrific outcome that is happening. Hamas ARE using the civilian population as human shields. The IDF do appear to be indiscriminate in their tactics (although some will point to warnings being given in advance of attacks). I think any implication that only one side is to blame or only one side is evil in all this is either naive or partisan. I don’t for one second say that only one side is to blame, but what is happening now is akin to if the British government had chosen to bomb Catholic neighbourhoods to rubble in response to IRA terrorist attacks. And I think making it impossible for Palestinians to safely live in Gaza is ethnic cleansing, and that’s what the Israeli government is doing." I am going to reserve judgement on terms like ethnic cleansing, if only because I am not aware of Israel taking action against Palestinians (or Israeli Arabs) within their own borders and because such an emotive term deserves far greater and more careful consideration. Your point on the IRA is not really equivalence. Those Catholic neighbourhoods in Northern Ireland were/are British citizens. It would really require the British to have bombed communities in the Rep of Ireland. Also the scale of IRA atrocities came nowhere close to what happened on 7 Oct. So the British were, arguably, proportionate in response. I understand the analogy but in all honesty, I think the Israel/Palestine situation is more complicated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered. Do we know this is a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza? For avoidance of doubt I am not supporting the actions of the Israeli Govt and the IDF. But ethnically cleanse? Really? As said very eloquently above (I think it was this thread) you cannot disaggregate the tactics of Hamas from the horrific outcome that is happening. Hamas ARE using the civilian population as human shields. The IDF do appear to be indiscriminate in their tactics (although some will point to warnings being given in advance of attacks). I think any implication that only one side is to blame or only one side is evil in all this is either naive or partisan. If the IDF aren't deliberately targeting civilians, with their state of the art high-tech weaponry, the sheer volume of innocent people killed is suspect. Doesn't seem to add up that they are hitting a few people indiscriminately, and doesn't explain cutting off water supply etc. Johnny none of us can say for sure as none of us are on the ground or party to decision making or chain of command. I think it is relatively safe to assume that there are elements of the IDF who have acted indiscriminately but we cannot simply assume that is military policy or strategy. The counter argument is that the IDF have issued warnings (I doubt in all cases) of an impending attack on an area. Hamas ARE hiding amongst the civilian population. I doubt they are easy to distinguish from those civilians. So that makes Hamas complicit in the deaths of civilians. On the one hand I understand why Israel felt the need to respond with force to the 7 Oct attack. On the other I believe their response is increasingly disproportional and international condemnation is growing as a result. Personally I am very comfortable condemning both the Israeli govt (and IDF) AND Hamas. From the comfort of my safe UK home of course where in all honesty I am nothing more than a spectator to the horrors that have happened." We're basically on the same page. I just can't believe that 30-40,000 civilians (whatever we're up to now) have been killed by accident. Of course Hamas are embedded amongst the population, and the Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated parts of the planet, so dropping bombs is going to kill a lot of people. Just don't think the IDF bear no responsibility for their actions, as some people are making out. Weather it's "ethnic cleansing" or not, there will never be an answer to that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered. Do we know this is a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza? For avoidance of doubt I am not supporting the actions of the Israeli Govt and the IDF. But ethnically cleanse? Really? As said very eloquently above (I think it was this thread) you cannot disaggregate the tactics of Hamas from the horrific outcome that is happening. Hamas ARE using the civilian population as human shields. The IDF do appear to be indiscriminate in their tactics (although some will point to warnings being given in advance of attacks). I think any implication that only one side is to blame or only one side is evil in all this is either naive or partisan. If the IDF aren't deliberately targeting civilians, with their state of the art high-tech weaponry, the sheer volume of innocent people killed is suspect. Doesn't seem to add up that they are hitting a few people indiscriminately, and doesn't explain cutting off water supply etc. Johnny none of us can say for sure as none of us are on the ground or party to decision making or chain of command. I think it is relatively safe to assume that there are elements of the IDF who have acted indiscriminately but we cannot simply assume that is military policy or strategy. The counter argument is that the IDF have issued warnings (I doubt in all cases) of an impending attack on an area. Hamas ARE hiding amongst the civilian population. I doubt they are easy to distinguish from those civilians. So that makes Hamas complicit in the deaths of civilians. On the one hand I understand why Israel felt the need to respond with force to the 7 Oct attack. On the other I believe their response is increasingly disproportional and international condemnation is growing as a result. Personally I am very comfortable condemning both the Israeli govt (and IDF) AND Hamas. From the comfort of my safe UK home of course where in all honesty I am nothing more than a spectator to the horrors that have happened. We're basically on the same page. I just can't believe that 30-40,000 civilians (whatever we're up to now) have been killed by accident. Of course Hamas are embedded amongst the population, and the Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated parts of the planet, so dropping bombs is going to kill a lot of people. Just don't think the IDF bear no responsibility for their actions, as some people are making out. Weather it's "ethnic cleansing" or not, there will never be an answer to that. " I’m not really seeing anyone claiming the IDF bear no responsibility? We are seeing one sided points being made on both sides. I see blame and culpability on both sides. There is no moral high ground in this conflict. I *think* what is happening with most posters in these Israel-Palestine threads is people are tending to post one-sided arguments so it is assumed (wrongly in most but not all cases) that the poster myst therefore support one side over another (or be making excuses for that side). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered. Do we know this is a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza? For avoidance of doubt I am not supporting the actions of the Israeli Govt and the IDF. But ethnically cleanse? Really? As said very eloquently above (I think it was this thread) you cannot disaggregate the tactics of Hamas from the horrific outcome that is happening. Hamas ARE using the civilian population as human shields. The IDF do appear to be indiscriminate in their tactics (although some will point to warnings being given in advance of attacks). I think any implication that only one side is to blame or only one side is evil in all this is either naive or partisan. I don’t for one second say that only one side is to blame, but what is happening now is akin to if the British government had chosen to bomb Catholic neighbourhoods to rubble in response to IRA terrorist attacks. And I think making it impossible for Palestinians to safely live in Gaza is ethnic cleansing, and that’s what the Israeli government is doing. I am going to reserve judgement on terms like ethnic cleansing, if only because I am not aware of Israel taking action against Palestinians (or Israeli Arabs) within their own borders and because such an emotive term deserves far greater and more careful consideration. Your point on the IRA is not really equivalence. Those Catholic neighbourhoods in Northern Ireland were/are British citizens. It would really require the British to have bombed communities in the Rep of Ireland. Also the scale of IRA atrocities came nowhere close to what happened on 7 Oct. So the British were, arguably, proportionate in response. I understand the analogy but in all honesty, I think the Israel/Palestine situation is more complicated." The trouble with waiting until you have proof that it Is 100% ethnic cleansing is that a population has been ‘cleansed’ by that point. There was a lot of information coming out of Germany about what was happening to the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s but we chose not to believe it. ‘Never again’ is not ethnicity specific. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered. Do we know this is a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza? For avoidance of doubt I am not supporting the actions of the Israeli Govt and the IDF. But ethnically cleanse? Really? As said very eloquently above (I think it was this thread) you cannot disaggregate the tactics of Hamas from the horrific outcome that is happening. Hamas ARE using the civilian population as human shields. The IDF do appear to be indiscriminate in their tactics (although some will point to warnings being given in advance of attacks). I think any implication that only one side is to blame or only one side is evil in all this is either naive or partisan. If the IDF aren't deliberately targeting civilians, with their state of the art high-tech weaponry, the sheer volume of innocent people killed is suspect. Doesn't seem to add up that they are hitting a few people indiscriminately, and doesn't explain cutting off water supply etc. Johnny none of us can say for sure as none of us are on the ground or party to decision making or chain of command. I think it is relatively safe to assume that there are elements of the IDF who have acted indiscriminately but we cannot simply assume that is military policy or strategy. The counter argument is that the IDF have issued warnings (I doubt in all cases) of an impending attack on an area. Hamas ARE hiding amongst the civilian population. I doubt they are easy to distinguish from those civilians. So that makes Hamas complicit in the deaths of civilians. On the one hand I understand why Israel felt the need to respond with force to the 7 Oct attack. On the other I believe their response is increasingly disproportional and international condemnation is growing as a result. Personally I am very comfortable condemning both the Israeli govt (and IDF) AND Hamas. From the comfort of my safe UK home of course where in all honesty I am nothing more than a spectator to the horrors that have happened. We're basically on the same page. I just can't believe that 30-40,000 civilians (whatever we're up to now) have been killed by accident. Of course Hamas are embedded amongst the population, and the Gaza strip is one of the most densely populated parts of the planet, so dropping bombs is going to kill a lot of people. Just don't think the IDF bear no responsibility for their actions, as some people are making out. Weather it's "ethnic cleansing" or not, there will never be an answer to that. I’m not really seeing anyone claiming the IDF bear no responsibility? " Definitely has. " We are seeing one sided points being made on both sides. I see blame and culpability on both sides. There is no moral high ground in this conflict. I *think* what is happening with most posters in these Israel-Palestine threads is people are tending to post one-sided arguments so it is assumed (wrongly in most but not all cases) that the poster myst therefore support one side over another (or be making excuses for that side)." Fair enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lol Everyone saying how this is obvious and that is obvious and its definitely those wrong and not these wrong lol. Coming from people who have absolutely no connection with what is happening there and probably never lived in anything worse than and argument with the neighbor. There is so much literature showing the facts of what Terrorism is and even some interviews with people from the heart of the Terrorists. Like the Interview you can watch on Youtube (Israel-Hamas War: 'Hamas Opened Up The Gates Of Hell' - Mosab Hassan Yousef Tells Piers Morgan). But you come onto a forum, even one with a different subject title, and Vomit Diarrhea all over it with incorrect facts. In fact NO facts at all, just what the so called news media splash to you. If you feel you are correct in what you are saying, then go over there and see it for yourself before coming here and spurting inuendo's about who is wrong etc." In that case the Fab Politics Forum had better charter an aircraft so we can fly around the world experiencing stuff for ourselves.....or we could use Google, Wiki, YouTube or a myriad of resources. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lol Everyone saying how this is obvious and that is obvious and its definitely those wrong and not these wrong lol. Coming from people who have absolutely no connection with what is happening there and probably never lived in anything worse than and argument with the neighbor. There is so much literature showing the facts of what Terrorism is and even some interviews with people from the heart of the Terrorists. Like the Interview you can watch on Youtube (Israel-Hamas War: 'Hamas Opened Up The Gates Of Hell' - Mosab Hassan Yousef Tells Piers Morgan). But you come onto a forum, even one with a different subject title, and Vomit Diarrhea all over it with incorrect facts. In fact NO facts at all, just what the so called news media splash to you. If you feel you are correct in what you are saying, then go over there and see it for yourself before coming here and spurting inuendo's about who is wrong etc." Who are you talking to/about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is just semantics. If you think the number of dead civilians in Gaza is acceptable, or worthy of being downplayed, fair enough. But at least let's be honest : it's planned and deliberate murder. When someone resorts to semantic arguments about the systematic murder of children and other civilians, there’s no point discussing anythIng further with them. You might have a point about semantics in general, but the post that you choose to illustrate the point actually demonstrates the opposite, and is right at the crux of the issue everyone seems to be concerned about: "it's planned and deliberate murder". For those who claim that the manner, method and intent behind the deaths of the thousands of innocent Gazans is unimportant, that it is simply a terrible tragedy, then they should have no issue with a passive and neutral word, such as "were killed". This focuses on the death of the victim. Words such as murder serve to place emphasis and moral judgement on the perpetrator of (and highlight) a crime. One doesn't say "uncle John was murdered when a car lost control in a storm last night". There are those who want to argue that there is not a deliberate attempt to murder thousands of innocent children, but rather a willingness to ignore human shields. Whether right or wrong, this is a position that would object to the use of the term murder. And in the context of the ICC case, provide mitigation. Words are important, not least in a thread about the ICC and culpability for war crimes. Law is extremely interested in the definition of terms such as murder, collateral damage, etc. Moreover, the considered and deliberate use of a word such as murder serves to accurately pinpoint the intent and values (and sometimes political position) of the person using it. So your point about semantics is absolutely correct for online forums in general. Just perhaps not in this specific thread. I just re-read the thread, and comment after comment concerns the appropriate choice of word to use. Meanwhile, a city has been levelled, tens of thousands slain and now literally being driven into the sea. If that's not semantics, I don't know what is. Absolutely this, the 6 million Jews, Romany, disabled, homosexual, trans people murdered by the Nazis in WW2 were not ‘casualties of war’, they were part of a deliberate attempt to exterminate those seen as undesirable by the German government. Similarly, the 14,000+ children murdered by Israeli forces are part of a very deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Now is not the time for semantics, now is the time to stop children and other civilians from being murdered. Do we know this is a deliberate attempt to ethnically cleanse Gaza? For avoidance of doubt I am not supporting the actions of the Israeli Govt and the IDF. But ethnically cleanse? Really? As said very eloquently above (I think it was this thread) you cannot disaggregate the tactics of Hamas from the horrific outcome that is happening. Hamas ARE using the civilian population as human shields. The IDF do appear to be indiscriminate in their tactics (although some will point to warnings being given in advance of attacks). I think any implication that only one side is to blame or only one side is evil in all this is either naive or partisan. I don’t for one second say that only one side is to blame, but what is happening now is akin to if the British government had chosen to bomb Catholic neighbourhoods to rubble in response to IRA terrorist attacks. And I think making it impossible for Palestinians to safely live in Gaza is ethnic cleansing, and that’s what the Israeli government is doing. I am going to reserve judgement on terms like ethnic cleansing, if only because I am not aware of Israel taking action against Palestinians (or Israeli Arabs) within their own borders and because such an emotive term deserves far greater and more careful consideration. Your point on the IRA is not really equivalence. Those Catholic neighbourhoods in Northern Ireland were/are British citizens. It would really require the British to have bombed communities in the Rep of Ireland. Also the scale of IRA atrocities came nowhere close to what happened on 7 Oct. So the British were, arguably, proportionate in response. I understand the analogy but in all honesty, I think the Israel/Palestine situation is more complicated. The trouble with waiting until you have proof that it Is 100% ethnic cleansing is that a population has been ‘cleansed’ by that point. There was a lot of information coming out of Germany about what was happening to the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s but we chose not to believe it. ‘Never again’ is not ethnicity specific." I understand your point but , horrific as it is, there are 2 million people living in Gaza so even now the number of casualties would not result in an ethnic cleansing. Again, just in case anyone takes offence (not my intention) I am not saying even one civilian casualty is ok. I am also continually uncomfortable with people drawing parallels with what the Nazis did. Again, the equivalence is not there. The circumstances were substantially different. A better parallel might be what happened in the Balkans in the 90s? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"lol Everyone saying how this is obvious and that is obvious and its definitely those wrong and not these wrong lol. Coming from people who have absolutely no connection with what is happening there and probably never lived in anything worse than and argument with the neighbor. " Some of us are lucky enough to be well travelled and to have lived in different cultures and different countries. " There is so much literature showing the facts of what Terrorism is and even some interviews with people from the heart of the Terrorists. " Literature you say. Do go on... " Like the Interview you can watch on Youtube (Israel-Hamas War: 'Hamas Opened Up The Gates Of Hell' - Mosab Hassan Yousef Tells Piers Morgan). " Oh. Pries Morgan on YouTube. " But you come onto a forum, even one with a different subject title, and Vomit Diarrhea all over it with incorrect facts. " That is a shame, incorrect facts you say. " In fact NO facts at all, " Oh scratch that, no facts. " just what the so called news media splash to you. If you feel you are correct in what you are saying, then go over there and see it for yourself before coming here and spurting inuendo's about who is wrong etc." Is that what you've done, can you give us your first hand experience from being out there? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is that what you've done, can you give us your first hand experience from being out there?" Nope but I do have a good friend from there and yes I have told YOU that many times from the other Forum. Also yes was brought up in a Country where barbaric Terrorist were very much a problem so again Yes some experience of it myself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is that what you've done, can you give us your first hand experience from being out there? Nope but I do have a good friend from there and yes I have told YOU that many times from the other Forum. Also yes was brought up in a Country where barbaric Terrorist were very much a problem so again Yes some experience of it myself" Excellent. So what's this life experience giving you on your perspective on these ICC application for arrest warrants ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what's this life experience giving you on your perspective on these ICC application for arrest warrants ?" Oh wow lol Shock that you actually want to discuss something on Topic lol There is, unless things have changed now, 2 application's for arrests. One for the Israeli leader and one for the head of Hamas. Israel aren't signed onto the ICC agreements so is null and void. Hamas have. If anyone thinks Hamas will hand over any of their people to a "Just and Legal System" I think they are swimming in the clouds lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So what's this life experience giving you on your perspective on these ICC application for arrest warrants ? Oh wow lol Shock that you actually want to discuss something on Topic lol There is, unless things have changed now, 2 application's for arrests. One for the Israeli leader and one for the head of Hamas. Israel aren't signed onto the ICC agreements so is null and void. Hamas have. If anyone thinks Hamas will hand over any of their people to a "Just and Legal System" I think they are swimming in the clouds lol" There were more than two. They applied for: Yahya Sinwar Al-Masri Haniyeh Netanyahu Gallant But aside from that, your point isn't counter to what anyone else made. And I don't see how your life experiences have given you any extra insight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But aside from that, your point isn't counter to what anyone else made. And I don't see how your life experiences have given you any extra insight." Probably not to you lol But also depends on what you are trying to point at here. If you are talking about your complete and absolute view that all the War Casualties in Gaza is Israel's fault then I think my life experiences give me a far better understanding of what is actually happening. My opinion only lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But aside from that, your point isn't counter to what anyone else made. And I don't see how your life experiences have given you any extra insight. Probably not to you lol " Because you have given a basic assessment that didn't require any specific life experience. " But also depends on what you are trying to point at here. If you are talking about your complete and absolute view that all the War Casualties in Gaza is Israel's fault " It's not. " then I think my life experiences give me a far better understanding of what is actually happening. My opinion only lol" Would you like to share your perspective? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No idea, but don't leaders of countries or diplomats have something called diplomatic immunity?" Your quite right, they do and assuming that covers this situation too then it's not even a half story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would you like to share your perspective?" Certainly not with you lol Sorry but you strike me as there is something radical about you and would certainly not share much more than what I have stated. But this is a free country and each to their own believes. Good luck to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would you like to share your perspective? Certainly not with you lol Sorry but you strike me as there is something radical about you and would certainly not share much more than what I have stated. But this is a free country and each to their own believes. Good luck to you." That's were we are. Expressing opposition to the mass slaughter of innocent civilians is now "radical". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's were we are. Expressing opposition to the mass slaughter of innocent civilians is now "radical"." Never once have I suggested mass slaughter of anyone, let alone innocent civilians, is anything but terrible beyond believe. But when someone is completely against a country eliminating a Terrorist group like Hamas and pushing all the blame on that country is, to me attempting to push support for Hamas. I can't believe, after all that many have tried to explain how Hamas is a Terrorist organisation and the whole mass murder of civilians is all on the heads of Hamas. Even the son of one of the Co-founders of Hamas has gone on TV and explained this in no uncertain terms. Yet you are still completely against Israel and absolutely never stated that Hamas is an organisation that commits mass murder, not in a war, of its own citizens. Israel and everyone knows that Israel has no choice but to go in after Hamas. They know they are going against a despicable Terrorist organisation and know they will use civilians as human shields. An Ex Hamas, Mosab Hassan Yousef, has explained what Hamas do and he states very clearly he speaks for the children and civilians of Gaza when he states, None of this is Israel's fault. It is all on Hamas and the world needs to come together and remove Hamas completely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's were we are. Expressing opposition to the mass slaughter of innocent civilians is now "radical". Never once have I suggested mass slaughter of anyone, let alone innocent civilians, is anything but terrible beyond believe. " Excellent, never said you did. " But when someone is completely against a country eliminating a Terrorist group like Hamas and pushing all the blame on that country is, to me attempting to push support for Hamas. " Just to be clear. It's the innocent civilians I'm speaking up for. If you translate that to support for Hamas. What can anyone do or say? " I can't believe, after all that many have tried to explain how Hamas is a Terrorist organisation and the whole mass murder of civilians is all on the heads of Hamas. " You appear to be suggesting that the IDF have no responsibility for the tens of thousands of civilians they're slaughtering? In which case, no form of reasoning is going to help. " Even the son of one of the Co-founders of Hamas has gone on TV and explained this in no uncertain terms. " Great, one bloke said some stuff. " Yet you are still completely against Israel " Nope, you've completely made that up. " and absolutely never stated that Hamas is an organisation that commits mass murder, " I've condemned the actions of Hamas many many many times. " not in a war, of its own citizens. Israel and everyone knows that Israel has no choice but to go in after Hamas. They know they are going against a despicable Terrorist organisation and know they will use civilians as human shields. An Ex Hamas, Mosab Hassan Yousef, has explained what Hamas do and he states very clearly he speaks for the children and civilians of Gaza when he states, None of this is Israel's fault. It is all on Hamas and the world needs to come together and remove Hamas completely." This to me is utterly bonkers. That the people committing the mass slaughter bear no responsibility. We're just so far apart it's ridiculous, not even taking into account the random bollocks you've made up about me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This to me is utterly bonkers. That the people committing the mass slaughter bear no responsibility. We're just so far apart it's ridiculous, not even taking into account the random bollocks you've made up about me." No its not. Have a close look at all your comments and if you have an IQ of greater than 3, you might understand what I'm saying. The IDF know full well what is happening and I believe you do to. But as so many have explained in the most simplest of terms, their hands are tied by the Blatant and Brutal atrocities played out by Hamas. As Mosab Hassan Yousef has tried to explain to the ignorance of people like yourself, Hamas is going to do anything and everything in their power to protect themselves. That includes putting innocent civilians in the line of fire. As he has stated, Palestinians will thank Israel for going in and demolishing Hamas. They are the sole cause of their demise. You need to wake up and realise that you are putting the blame on the wrong side. Stand up for what is right and do what you can to encourage the removal of Hamas. Those poor soles in Gaza want rid of the evil of Hamas. If you have any feelings for humanity, you will help to do that instead of sprouting the ignorance you are so blatantly showing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This to me is utterly bonkers. That the people committing the mass slaughter bear no responsibility. We're just so far apart it's ridiculous, not even taking into account the random bollocks you've made up about me. No its not. Have a close look at all your comments and if you have an IQ of greater than 3, you might understand what I'm saying. The IDF know full well what is happening and I believe you do to. But as so many have explained in the most simplest of terms, their hands are tied by the Blatant and Brutal atrocities played out by Hamas. As Mosab Hassan Yousef has tried to explain to the ignorance of people like yourself, Hamas is going to do anything and everything in their power to protect themselves. That includes putting innocent civilians in the line of fire. As he has stated, Palestinians will thank Israel for going in and demolishing Hamas. They are the sole cause of their demise. You need to wake up and realise that you are putting the blame on the wrong side. Stand up for what is right and do what you can to encourage the removal of Hamas. Those poor soles in Gaza want rid of the evil of Hamas. If you have any feelings for humanity, you will help to do that instead of sprouting the ignorance you are so blatantly showing" So let’s imagine that tomorrow the IDF finds all remaining hamas fighters and leaders in a room together and shoots them all, no more civilians killed, the remaining Palestinians will say, oh well, the destruction of 80 or so % of our buildings and infrastructure, turning this land desolate, and deaths of our family members, was worth it? Now we can live in peace (under Israeli control)… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This to me is utterly bonkers. That the people committing the mass slaughter bear no responsibility. We're just so far apart it's ridiculous, not even taking into account the random bollocks you've made up about me. No its not. Have a close look at all your comments and if you have an IQ of greater than 3, you might understand what I'm saying. The IDF know full well what is happening and I believe you do to. But as so many have explained in the most simplest of terms, their hands are tied by the Blatant and Brutal atrocities played out by Hamas. As Mosab Hassan Yousef has tried to explain to the ignorance of people like yourself, Hamas is going to do anything and everything in their power to protect themselves. That includes putting innocent civilians in the line of fire. As he has stated, Palestinians will thank Israel for going in and demolishing Hamas. They are the sole cause of their demise. You need to wake up and realise that you are putting the blame on the wrong side. Stand up for what is right and do what you can to encourage the removal of Hamas. Those poor soles in Gaza want rid of the evil of Hamas. If you have any feelings for humanity, you will help to do that instead of sprouting the ignorance you are so blatantly showing" I'll be honest, no amount of personal insults is going to convince me that the IDF bear no responsibility for their actions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So let’s imagine that tomorrow the IDF finds all remaining hamas fighters and leaders in a room together and shoots them all, no more civilians killed, the remaining Palestinians will say, oh well, the destruction of 80 or so % of our buildings and infrastructure, turning this land desolate, and deaths of our family members, was worth it? Now we can live in peace (under Israeli control)…" Have you listened to the Interview with Mosab Hassan Yousef? The complete destruction of their lives and city is completely the fault of Hamas. The people only want to live lives that encourage growth and peace. With Hamas that will never happen. only brutal slaying of their loved ones at the hands of Hamas. What would you want if you it was your family in those circumstances. We all know the outcome of this will include international aid to rebuild Gaze | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This to me is utterly bonkers. That the people committing the mass slaughter bear no responsibility. We're just so far apart it's ridiculous, not even taking into account the random bollocks you've made up about me. No its not. Have a close look at all your comments and if you have an IQ of greater than 3, you might understand what I'm saying. The IDF know full well what is happening and I believe you do to. But as so many have explained in the most simplest of terms, their hands are tied by the Blatant and Brutal atrocities played out by Hamas. As Mosab Hassan Yousef has tried to explain to the ignorance of people like yourself, Hamas is going to do anything and everything in their power to protect themselves. That includes putting innocent civilians in the line of fire. As he has stated, Palestinians will thank Israel for going in and demolishing Hamas. They are the sole cause of their demise. You need to wake up and realise that you are putting the blame on the wrong side. Stand up for what is right and do what you can to encourage the removal of Hamas. Those poor soles in Gaza want rid of the evil of Hamas. If you have any feelings for humanity, you will help to do that instead of sprouting the ignorance you are so blatantly showing" Hallow be the Ori. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As for Hamas I cannot see how this would affect them as they have no political wing do they?, except for choosing were to live I suppose. Sadly it does have a so called political wing. They took control of Gaza after it won elections there in 2006. Since then, no elections have been held. They run their Politics with Fear and Brutality. I think that is a good thing that there is a political wing, if the IRA didn't have a political side we would still be being bombed.The IRA had a political wing whilst they were actively bombing. Mrs x" Having been in uncomfortable close proximity to 2 bombings as a child then hearing Messers Addams and McGuinnes espose platitudes of peace makes things ring very hollow in my ears. My two pennies rubbed together. The ICC process is correct, the law must be applied equally and fairly. Hammas have committed crimes against humanity in an abhorrent terrorist act. Israel has failed to adhere to the conduct of war. Both are crimes however the application and subsequent issue of arrest warrants does not equate them, it is a result of the analysis of the facts that crimes has been committed. It would be the trial, findings and sentencing which would be the metric of their equivalency. A murdered condemned to death and a fraudster given 9 months suspended sentence would both have been correctly arrested but that is not the sign their crimes were comparable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Murder is a Topic very difficult to explain. " Is it? "Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." " Especially if its an act of self preservation. " Then it's not murder. " I think anyone in their right mind would defend themselves if confronted with any act of Terrorism. " Yes. " The sad fact is that if people start thinking you can converse with Terrorists, " Except of course where you can, such as in Northern Ireland. " it becomes an argument no one can win. " Except as per the example, peace won. Good work all round. " The only way anyone can fully understand Terrorism is if they have had the misfortune of living among it." Or if they learn about it through other means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or if they learn about it through other means. "You obviously hate any other comments that don't specifically agree with your own. Please leave me alone. You are extremely boring. Try looking up conversation and learn there is many with different points of view. Stop causing negative debate and look to make pleasant conversations instead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Murder is a Topic very difficult to explain. Is it? "Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Especially if its an act of self preservation. Then it's not murder. I think anyone in their right mind would defend themselves if confronted with any act of Terrorism. Yes. The sad fact is that if people start thinking you can converse with Terrorists, Except of course where you can, such as in Northern Ireland. it becomes an argument no one can win. Except as per the example, peace won. Good work all round. The only way anyone can fully understand Terrorism is if they have had the misfortune of living among it. Or if they learn about it through other means. "It's much more complicated than the Hood Friday Agreement, many more moving parts, with more agendas. You state that a state can defend themselves against terrorism. You also, correctly state, that self defense is a defence and is not murder. So are the IDF not committing murder due to them protecting themselves from terrorist attacks? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Good Friday even."
Agreed. Sad the agreement doesn't work for Terrorists like Hamas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Or if they learn about it through other means.
You obviously hate any other comments that don't specifically agree with your own. Please leave me alone. You are extremely boring. Try looking up conversation and learn there is many with different points of view.
Stop causing negative debate and look to make pleasant conversations instead."Just so I'm 100% clear. 1. Replying to your comments is "negative debate" and "extremely boring"? And. 2. A string of personal insults and attacks you make on me is cool? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Murder is a Topic very difficult to explain. Is it? "Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Especially if its an act of self preservation. Then it's not murder. I think anyone in their right mind would defend themselves if confronted with any act of Terrorism. Yes. The sad fact is that if people start thinking you can converse with Terrorists, Except of course where you can, such as in Northern Ireland. it becomes an argument no one can win. Except as per the example, peace won. Good work all round. The only way anyone can fully understand Terrorism is if they have had the misfortune of living among it. Or if they learn about it through other means. It's much more complicated than the Hood Friday Agreement, many more moving parts, with more agendas.
"It course. It was an example of when "conversing with terrorists" happened, and worked. " You state that a state can defend themselves against terrorism. You also, correctly state, that self defense is a defence and is not murder. So are the IDF not committing murder due to them protecting themselves from terrorist attacks? Mrs x" The IDF aren't currently defending their state. They're helping vast numbers of people to be radicalised, making it more likely that Israel will be attacked again. And the cycle of death and destruction will continue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just so I'm 100% clear. 1. Replying to your comments is "negative debate" and "extremely boring"? And. 2. A string of personal insults and attacks you make on me is cool?" Oh Boy LOL Fab should have an ignore button. Make it so you can completely un-see anything the profile says and they yours. I'm all for reading debate and all ideas but sometimes its just simpler to Ignore or at least it would be if you can't see them at all. Wishful thinking lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Murder is a Topic very difficult to explain. Is it? "Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Especially if its an act of self preservation. Then it's not murder. I think anyone in their right mind would defend themselves if confronted with any act of Terrorism. Yes. The sad fact is that if people start thinking you can converse with Terrorists, Except of course where you can, such as in Northern Ireland. it becomes an argument no one can win. Except as per the example, peace won. Good work all round. The only way anyone can fully understand Terrorism is if they have had the misfortune of living among it. Or if they learn about it through other means. It's much more complicated than the Hood Friday Agreement, many more moving parts, with more agendas.
It course. It was an example of when "conversing with terrorists" happened, and worked.
You state that a state can defend themselves against terrorism. You also, correctly state, that self defense is a defence and is not murder. So are the IDF not committing murder due to them protecting themselves from terrorist attacks?
Mrs x
The IDF aren't currently defending their state.
They're helping vast numbers of people to be radicalised, making it more likely that Israel will be attacked again. And the cycle of death and destruction will continue."Sating it's worked elsewhere is very simplistic and doesn't mean it will here. I could point to Oslo Accords which was a failed example of this involving the Yasser Arafat and Istael. I'd say the PLO but Arafat did this on his own and in secret. The Arab League hated him for doing this and it's one of the reasons it failed. And the IDF are protecting their state? How do you figure that? Rockets and missiles are fired daily from Gaza into Israel, that hasn't stopped. I thought you said a state could protect itself from terrorism, why can't Israel? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought you said a state could protect itself from terrorism, why can't Israel? Mrs x" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Murder is a Topic very difficult to explain. Is it? "Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Especially if its an act of self preservation. Then it's not murder. I think anyone in their right mind would defend themselves if confronted with any act of Terrorism. Yes. The sad fact is that if people start thinking you can converse with Terrorists, Except of course where you can, such as in Northern Ireland. it becomes an argument no one can win. Except as per the example, peace won. Good work all round. The only way anyone can fully understand Terrorism is if they have had the misfortune of living among it. Or if they learn about it through other means. It's much more complicated than the Hood Friday Agreement, many more moving parts, with more agendas.
It course. It was an example of when "conversing with terrorists" happened, and worked.
You state that a state can defend themselves against terrorism. You also, correctly state, that self defense is a defence and is not murder. So are the IDF not committing murder due to them protecting themselves from terrorist attacks?
Mrs x
The IDF aren't currently defending their state.
They're helping vast numbers of people to be radicalised, making it more likely that Israel will be attacked again. And the cycle of death and destruction will continue.Sating it's worked elsewhere is very simplistic and doesn't mean it will here.
"I haven't stated it will work everywhere. There has to be some dialogue and some agreement at some point. Otherwise the violence will go on and on. " I could point to Oslo Accords which was a failed example of this involving the Yasser Arafat and Istael. I'd say the PLO but Arafat did this on his own and in secret. The Arab League hated him for doing this and it's one of the reasons it failed. And the IDF are protecting their state? How do you figure that? Rockets and missiles are fired daily from Gaza into Israel, that hasn't stopped. " Exactly, and it's likely to get worse because of what's going on. " I thought you said a state could protect itself from terrorism, why can't Israel? Mrs x" It can. It's not currently protecting itself from terrorism. It's bombing civilians. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just so I'm 100% clear. 1. Replying to your comments is "negative debate" and "extremely boring"? And. 2. A string of personal insults and attacks you make on me is cool? Oh Boy LOL Fab should have an ignore button. Make it so you can completely un-see anything the profile says and they yours. I'm all for reading debate and all ideas but sometimes its just simpler to Ignore or at least it would be if you can't see them at all. Wishful thinking lol" You're "all for reading debate", but when I try, you just fire personal insults and attacks, and all but give up on making any points. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Murder is a Topic very difficult to explain. Is it? "Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." Especially if its an act of self preservation. Then it's not murder. I think anyone in their right mind would defend themselves if confronted with any act of Terrorism. Yes. The sad fact is that if people start thinking you can converse with Terrorists, Except of course where you can, such as in Northern Ireland. it becomes an argument no one can win. Except as per the example, peace won. Good work all round. The only way anyone can fully understand Terrorism is if they have had the misfortune of living among it. Or if they learn about it through other means. It's much more complicated than the Hood Friday Agreement, many more moving parts, with more agendas.
It course. It was an example of when "conversing with terrorists" happened, and worked.
You state that a state can defend themselves against terrorism. You also, correctly state, that self defense is a defence and is not murder. So are the IDF not committing murder due to them protecting themselves from terrorist attacks?
Mrs x
The IDF aren't currently defending their state.
They're helping vast numbers of people to be radicalised, making it more likely that Israel will be attacked again. And the cycle of death and destruction will continue.Sating it's worked elsewhere is very simplistic and doesn't mean it will here.
I haven't stated it will work everywhere.
There has to be some dialogue and some agreement at some point. Otherwise the violence will go on and on.
I could point to Oslo Accords which was a failed example of this involving the Yasser Arafat and Istael. I'd say the PLO but Arafat did this on his own and in secret. The Arab League hated him for doing this and it's one of the reasons it failed.
And the IDF are protecting their state? How do you figure that? Rockets and missiles are fired daily from Gaza into Israel, that hasn't stopped.
Exactly, and it's likely to get worse because of what's going on.
I thought you said a state could protect itself from terrorism, why can't Israel?
Mrs x
It can. It's not currently protecting itself from terrorism. It's bombing civilians. "Israel and Palestinians have has 5 offers of a two state solution. Each of these were rejected by Palestinians because of the Khartoum 3 No's agreement between the States of the Arab League. Israel did not terminate negotiations on any of these peace talks until Palestine walked out. I do agree with you that violence will continue whilst Hamas still exists as there constitution calls for the complete destruction of Israel and Jews themselves. This is in contrast to Israel who allow Palestinians to become citizens of Israel. A choice made by more than 2 million Palestinians. You say it's not defending itself currently, what about the daily rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza into Israel? Surely that's an attack on Israel? Surely that means Israel can defend itself? They don't want to harm ordinary Palistinians, they just want to eradicate Terrorism. I don't agree with all the tactics used but surely they have a right to defend themselves and remove this scourge of terrorism that they've been facing since the countries inception? Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
