|
Post by Bentley on May 28, 2024 16:08:51 GMT
Heard in Hamas headquarters.. Here’s a cunning plan . Kill a few thousand of our enemy’s’ civilians then hide behind our own civilians when our enemy retaliates. Soon you will have the support of the naive lefties and assorted virtue signallers across the world . What could go wrong ?. Any actual evidence to support that? Or is it, like most of the righty posts on this thread, made up shit with no grounding in reality? Next you'll claim that wanting Israel to be legally and morally accountable for its own actions is the same as supporting Hamas... ...oh, wait... ...some fuckwit tried that already. All The Best Neither of us were there but if you have evidence that Hamas fighters are not in civilian areas then let me see it . Next you will be making up an accusation about something never done and trying to get away with it by putting ‘ next’ at the start of sentence . Some fuckwit has already done it…oh look it’s you ..
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 28, 2024 16:14:50 GMT
Any actual evidence to support that? Or is it, like most of the righty posts on this thread, made up shit with no grounding in reality? Next you'll claim that wanting Israel to be legally and morally accountable for its own actions is the same as supporting Hamas... ...oh, wait... ...some fuckwit tried that already. All The Best Neither of us were there but if you have evidence that Hamas fighters are not in civilian areas then let me see it . Next you will be making up an accusation about something never done and trying to get away with it by putting ‘ next’ at the start of sentence . Some fuckwit has already done it…oh look it’s you .. I don't. But then I have never claimed that is the case, or that I have evidence to support a claim I never made. In fact I have said it is highly likely that in SOME of the cases where the IDF has claimed Hamas are embedded within non-combatant people or areas it is probably true. That does not change the fact that it IS Israel that CHOOSES to fire munitions on those civilians and civilian areas. B-4 and see2 have both claimed that wanting Israel to be accountable equates to supporting Hamas. Heck, see2 has told that lie within the last 24 hours, about me. All The Best
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 28, 2024 16:19:53 GMT
Neither of us were there but if you have evidence that Hamas fighters are not in civilian areas then let me see it . Next you will be making up an accusation about something never done and trying to get away with it by putting ‘ next’ at the start of sentence . Some fuckwit has already done it…oh look it’s you .. I don't. But then I have never claimed that is the case, or that I have evidence to support a claim I never made. In fact I have said it is highly likely that in SOME of the cases where the IDF has claimed Hamas are embedded within non-combatant people or areas it is probably true. That does not change the fact that it IS Israel that CHOOSES to fire munitions on those civilians and civilian areas. B-4 and see2 have both claimed that wanting Israel to be accountable equates to supporting Hamas. Heck, see2 has told that lie within the last 24 hours, about me. All The Best Of course the IDF chooses to fire at Hamas when they are in civilian areas . That’s how they kill Hamas fighters . Otherwise Hamas can hide behind civilians and not be killed …deh..
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 28, 2024 17:10:00 GMT
I don't. But then I have never claimed that is the case, or that I have evidence to support a claim I never made. In fact I have said it is highly likely that in SOME of the cases where the IDF has claimed Hamas are embedded within non-combatant people or areas it is probably true. That does not change the fact that it IS Israel that CHOOSES to fire munitions on those civilians and civilian areas. B-4 and see2 have both claimed that wanting Israel to be accountable equates to supporting Hamas. Heck, see2 has told that lie within the last 24 hours, about me. All The Best Of course the IDF chooses to fire at Hamas when they are in civilian areas . That’s how they kill Hamas fighters . Otherwise Hamas can hide behind civilians and not be killed …deh.. They are CHOOSING to fire AT Civilians, not just Civilian Areas, which is part of the reason the death toll of Press and Aid Workers is so high. Heck, even the tragic case of the IDF killing fellow IDF members demonstrated that the IDF do NOT properly identify targets before opening fire; because those IDF victims were not armed, and it is illegal to fire upon unarmed persons. I agree, that if they choose not to target Civilian Areas (which necessitates choosing to fire on Civilians) then they would need to fight a much tougher full ground invasion rather than dropping bombs from the safety of planes and drones. There are no easy choices here, but there is, IMO, a clearly wrong choice - the one that Israel has chosen. Even at the originally quoted 2 dead non-combatants for every dead Hamas fighter Anthony Blinken (IIRC) said that an Israeli victory would be Pyrrhic one, because it would create more militants than it destroyed. This is the most alarming things for me, by taking the actions it has the Israeli regime has made Israelis LESS safe, not more. The denial of sufficient aid and the grossly high non-combatant casualty number creates more militants than they destroy. The refusal to accept, even in principle, a 2SS denies any hope of a clear, and achievable route to peace. It is almost like Israel wants the conflict to continue; well, Netanyahu does, it is the only thing keeping him out of court on corruption charges. All The Best
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 28, 2024 17:18:40 GMT
Of course the IDF chooses to fire at Hamas when they are in civilian areas . That’s how they kill Hamas fighters . Otherwise Hamas can hide behind civilians and not be killed …deh.. They are CHOOSING to fire AT Civilians, not just Civilian Areas, which is part of the reason the death toll of Press and Aid Workers is so high. Heck, even the tragic case of the IDF killing fellow IDF members demonstrated that the IDF do NOT properly identify targets before opening fire; because those IDF victims were not armed, and it is illegal to fire upon unarmed persons. I agree, that if they choose not to target Civilian Areas (which necessitates choosing to fire on Civilians) then they would need to fight a much tougher full ground invasion rather than dropping bombs from the safety of planes and drones. There are no easy choices here, but there is, IMO, a clearly wrong choice - the one that Israel has chosen. Even at the originally quoted 2 dead non-combatants for every dead Hamas fighter Anthony Blinken (IIRC) said that an Israeli victory would be Pyrrhic one, because it would create more militants than it destroyed. This is the most alarming things for me, by taking the actions it has the Israeli regime has made Israelis LESS safe, not more. The denial of sufficient aid and the grossly high non-combatant casualty number creates more militants than they destroy. The refusal to accept, even in principle, a 2SS denies any hope of a clear, and achievable route to peace. It is almost like Israel wants the conflict to continue; well, Netanyahu does, it is the only thing keeping him out of court on corruption charges. All The Best I repeat ..Of course the IDF chooses to fire at Hamas when they are in civilian areas . That’s how they kill Hamas fighters . Otherwise Hamas can hide behind civilians and not be killed …deh.. The fsct that you would seriously suggest that Israel should commit to full ground invasion due to Hamas hiding behind human shields tells us a lot about your credibility…which is low tbh.
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 28, 2024 17:23:25 GMT
They are CHOOSING to fire AT Civilians, not just Civilian Areas, which is part of the reason the death toll of Press and Aid Workers is so high. Heck, even the tragic case of the IDF killing fellow IDF members demonstrated that the IDF do NOT properly identify targets before opening fire; because those IDF victims were not armed, and it is illegal to fire upon unarmed persons. I agree, that if they choose not to target Civilian Areas (which necessitates choosing to fire on Civilians) then they would need to fight a much tougher full ground invasion rather than dropping bombs from the safety of planes and drones. There are no easy choices here, but there is, IMO, a clearly wrong choice - the one that Israel has chosen. Even at the originally quoted 2 dead non-combatants for every dead Hamas fighter Anthony Blinken (IIRC) said that an Israeli victory would be Pyrrhic one, because it would create more militants than it destroyed. This is the most alarming things for me, by taking the actions it has the Israeli regime has made Israelis LESS safe, not more. The denial of sufficient aid and the grossly high non-combatant casualty number creates more militants than they destroy. The refusal to accept, even in principle, a 2SS denies any hope of a clear, and achievable route to peace. It is almost like Israel wants the conflict to continue; well, Netanyahu does, it is the only thing keeping him out of court on corruption charges. All The Best I repeat ..Of course the IDF chooses to fire at Hamas when they are in civilian areas . That’s how they kill Hamas fighters . Otherwise Hamas can hide behind civilians and not be killed …deh.. The fsct that you would seriously suggest that Israel should commit to full ground invasion due to Hamas hiding behind human shields tells us a lot about your credibility…which is low tbh. That you believe wanting to reduce to a reasonable level the incidents of non-combatant casualties harms my credibility is not an insult to me; it is an insult to you. All The Best
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 28, 2024 17:38:03 GMT
I repeat ..Of course the IDF chooses to fire at Hamas when they are in civilian areas . That’s how they kill Hamas fighters . Otherwise Hamas can hide behind civilians and not be killed …deh.. The fsct that you would seriously suggest that Israel should commit to full ground invasion due to Hamas hiding behind human shields tells us a lot about your credibility…which is low tbh. That you believe wanting to reduce to a reasonable level the incidents of non-combatant casualties harms my credibility is not an insult to me; it is an insult to you. All The Best There’s no reason to think that a ground invasion would significantly reduce civilian casualties if Hamas used them as human shields. There is a reason to think that a ground invasion would significantly increase Israeli military personnel whether Hamas uses civilians as human shields or not. You are drifting further into a delusional dream world with every post
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2024 19:07:12 GMT
It passes as debate, in some worlds. It is ranting and raving, not pretty at all. I'm sure he believes he won the debate with his big boy forum talk.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 29, 2024 5:39:10 GMT
There is no point in trying to debate with a liar like yourself. ^^^ When in history and right up to today, did the Israelis ever declare a war of annihilation on the Palestinian Arabs? You don't have to "declare war" to actually be fighting one. And "war of annihilation" is just another made-up term by you that has no basis in fact; this has been pointed out already, but you persist in spreading the falsehood. You are just like Netanyahu and Tony Blair aren't you - an NBL - Natural Born Liar. All The Best Jews, even as unarmed victims of Dhimmitude, slaughtered by Arabs? So four armies from four different Arab countries plus Palestinian Arab fighter, intent on destroying Israel in their three attempts to annihilate Israel, is just a made up term by me LOL At least your natural born lying is so ridiculous it is laughable.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 2, 2024 4:09:41 GMT
Should Palestinian Arabs be given a Palestinian state. If so why yes, or why no.? Yes Because some Bloody idiot called Balfour happily handed the Jews one without giving a flying fuck about the inevitable consequences
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 2, 2024 6:49:08 GMT
Should Palestinian Arabs be given a Palestinian state. If so why yes, or why no.? Yes Because some Bloody idiot called Balfour happily handed the Jews one without giving a flying fuck about the inevitable consequences He also handed one to the Palestinians - but that was rejected by them.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 2, 2024 8:32:01 GMT
Yes Because some Bloody idiot called Balfour happily handed the Jews one without giving a flying fuck about the inevitable consequences He also handed one to the Palestinians - but that was rejected by them. Interesting that there seems no obvious search result pointing to that. I’m used to this of course, censorship of search engines is rife In fact though i was actually thinking more along the lines of comparing and contrasting Balfour’s handing them the land they wanted, as opposed to Chamberlain’s idea of handing them a huge chunk of Kenya / Uganda. Had this been done, the jews could have set about slaughtering the indigenous blacks to establish their homeland and no one would have given a flying fuck. Moreover, they could have entertained themselves by waging war against the black islamics that have set up home in the dark continent and again no one would give a shit
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 4, 2024 14:36:55 GMT
Should Palestinian Arabs be given a Palestinian state. If so why yes, or why no.? Yes Because some Bloody idiot called Balfour happily handed the Jews one without giving a flying fuck about the inevitable consequences The Jews were living in the area of Palestine including long before the would be all controlling Muslim Arabs arrived. They were absolutely entitled to a slice of Palestine as too and as much as, the Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs decided they wanted it all, and finished up getting a well deserved good hiding from the Palestinian Jews. The Jews settled for peace in a 2state Palestine, the Palestinian Arabs chose war against the Palestinian Jews.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jun 4, 2024 14:41:19 GMT
He also handed one to the Palestinians - but that was rejected by them. Interesting that there seems no obvious search result pointing to that. I’m used to this of course, censorship of search engines is rife In fact though i was actually thinking more along the lines of comparing and contrasting Balfour’s handing them the land they wanted, as opposed to Chamberlain’s idea of handing them a huge chunk of Kenya / Uganda. Had this been done, the jews could have set about slaughtering the indigenous blacks to establish their homeland and no one would have given a flying fuck.
Moreover, they could have entertained themselves by waging war against the black islamics that have set up home in the dark continent and again no one would give a shitJohn, that statement is a fucking disgrace. The Arabs chose violence and war not the Jews.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 4, 2024 15:42:35 GMT
Interesting that there seems no obvious search result pointing to that. I’m used to this of course, censorship of search engines is rife In fact though i was actually thinking more along the lines of comparing and contrasting Balfour’s handing them the land they wanted, as opposed to Chamberlain’s idea of handing them a huge chunk of Kenya / Uganda. Had this been done, the jews could have set about slaughtering the indigenous blacks to establish their homeland and no one would have given a flying fuck.
Moreover, they could have entertained themselves by waging war against the black islamics that have set up home in the dark continent and again no one would give a shitJohn, that statement is a fucking disgrace. The Arabs chose violence and war not the Jews. Really ? Who blew up the king david hotel ? Ossma Bin Laden ? I think not
|
|