Middle East Conflict | Netanyahu orders strikes on Gaza (p1161)

BigJoe#1 said:
So how far back are we going to go? King Herard (of Palestinian persuasion) who ordered the murder of all new bor Jewish babies for fear of being overthrown...?

No, I appreciate the events of 7th October wer as a consequence of stuff that had gone on before, but there is no doubt that they were a catalyst for the significant death toll that has happened sine that date. To deny that is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...
What was the catalyst for the significant death toll before that date?

Can you (and others) really not grasp that an atrocity is an atrocity whether it lasts a day or two or decades?

And are you seriously trying to say that Herod was a Palestinian king out to kill Jews? You're off message - Palestine never existed. There's no such people as Palestinians so how can there be a genocide against a non-people?
 
robbieh said:
It only stops if the Israelis clear out of the West Bank which then becomes Palestine.
As Israel has no intention of doing this they can expect armed resistance and rightly so.
Click to expand...
I don't know but I do believe based on long standing issues that the Palestinians want to eradicate Jews from the face of the earth. Haven't they tried withdrawing from Gaza before?
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
This whole sub forum does. Same posters saying the same things ad nauseam.
Click to expand...
Maybe not any poster here but it’s obvious that public sympathy has shifted. At least one poster has taken the trouble finally to do some history and find out that the only Jewish king called The Great was in fact an Arab.

Most Jewish kings were awful. And G-d had warned them not to have kings.
 
Last edited:
BigJoe#1 said:
No, I do not understand why that massacre happened, there is/was no justification - it was barbaric and very very disturbing. That said the consequential after effects as a direct result or it are also totally and equally unjustified.
Click to expand...
You don't understand?

No Justification: A different question.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
I don't know but I do believe based on long standing issues that the Palestinians want to eradicate Jews from the face of the earth. Haven't they tried withdrawing from Gaza before?
Click to expand...
OK, so you are essentially saying no to a Palestine state as it would endanger Israel. Which is essentially the view of the Israeli government.
So what has happened since 1880. Jewish population of Palestine 2%.
Zionism started around this time.
By 1918 Jews made up 8 percent of the population and kept on increasing especially after the Holocaust. Neither Britain or the US wanted Jews coming to their countries. So instead Palestine was divided. Israeli leaders at the time knew that expansion was the only option and that the indigenous Palestinians would not play ball. And so it transpired.

But what you are suggesting is that the Palestinians should have no land and that the Jews who a 100 years ago mad up a small proportion of the land should have 100%.

That to me seems morally suspect and apart from anything it's not going to work as what's to become of 5 million Palestinians living in the area.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
So explain... why did Hamas carry out the Massacre? I don't understand why they did it.
Click to expand...
"I never want to serve on a jury again. For three whole days we had to listen to the defendant, and expert witnesses, explain over and over and over and over and over and over why he murdered his neighbor and killed the neighbors two pet dogs. I just don't understand why he did it. Maybe I should have volunteered during voir dire I'm as thick as a whale omelette."

"He said he killed him because he played music too loudly, let his dogs crap on his lawn, and parked his car in the street inconveniencing everyone. I just don't understand why he did it!"

C'mon man. Of course you understand "why". The next question is one of "justification."

"This Appellant Court during it's review of the case from the Federal District Court previously mentioned is in no doubt that the jury clearly understood the evidence and jury instructions. Claims the jury did not understand the evidence as to the motives of the defendant do not pass the straight-face test, especially considering the defendant himself clearly stated whilst testifying why he did it. Defendant claims his action was fully justified and legally permissible. The jury rejected defendants affirmative defense of justifiable homicide. The decision of the lower court is without material error and the decision is affirmed."
 
The blue phantom said:
Posters have to challenge the Israeli bullshit.
Click to expand...
Of course there should be challenges to all different viewpoints.

It’s when the same posters post the same things repeatedly that it goes nowhere.

See the post above yours. Once the evidence is laid out, it’s laid out, however many times it is posted. You cannot make another poster see what they don’t want to or cannot see.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Of course there should be challenges to all different viewpoints.

It’s when the same posters post the same things repeatedly that it goes nowhere.

See the post above yours. Once the evidence is laid out, it’s laid out, however many times it is posted. You cannot make another poster see what they don’t want to or cannot see.
Click to expand...
True. I know I'm guilty of this too but I just feel that it's warranted to keep highlighting the Israli war crimes. I know where you're coming from though.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
So you believe it was acceptable... now that is happening in Gaza on a much larger scale it's unacceptable? You need to get to Geneva and start re-writing the rules of war. A bit like ... if Man Utd (Palestinians) do it's all okay, but if City (Israeli's) do it, it's an outrage.
Click to expand...
So far today you've called someone a hypocritical Nazi. and either you're wumming, or wilfully distorting what people are saying.

I think it must be wumming. Surely no-one could be innocent enough to cite the Geneva Conventions in relation to what Israel has been doing for nearly 60 years (and well before the Geneva Conventions came into force).

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) considers the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Gaza Strip, which constitute the occupied Palestinian territory, as remaining under Israeli occupation governed by treaty and customary rules of international humanitarian law (IHL), comprising the rules of belligerent occupation, and by international human rights law (IHRL).

The ICRC has consistently been asserting that the whole Israeli settlement enterprise undermines the raison d’être of the law of occupation. It fundamentally changes the status quo ante by creating facts on the ground that risk being permanent and generate far-reaching humanitarian consequences for Palestinians living under occupation. The settlement enterprise also shows how the State of Israel has used the broad powers granted to it by occupation law with a view to using the resources - or other assets of the territory it occupies - for the benefit of its own territory or population without discharging its correlative duties vis-à-vis the occupied population.
 
Vic said:
So far today you've called someone a hypocritical Nazi. and either you're wumming, or wilfully distorting what people are saying.

I think it must be wumming. Surely no-one could be innocent enough to cite the Geneva Conventions in relation to what Israel has been doing for nearly 60 years (and well before the Geneva Conventions came into force).

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) considers the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as well as the Gaza Strip, which constitute the occupied Palestinian territory, as remaining under Israeli occupation governed by treaty and customary rules of international humanitarian law (IHL), comprising the rules of belligerent occupation, and by international human rights law (IHRL).

The ICRC has consistently been asserting that the whole Israeli settlement enterprise undermines the raison d’être of the law of occupation. It fundamentally changes the status quo ante by creating facts on the ground that risk being permanent and generate far-reaching humanitarian consequences for Palestinians living under occupation. The settlement enterprise also shows how the State of Israel has used the broad powers granted to it by occupation law with a view to using the resources - or other assets of the territory it occupies - for the benefit of its own territory or population without discharging its correlative duties vis-à-vis the occupied population.
Click to expand...
The apparent hatred for Israel and by default the Jews by the Palestine supporting posters is blatantly obvious. My dislike and loathing for everyone that engaged in the kind of violence we all witnessed on 7th October and the subsequent abhorrent treatment of people in Gaza are of equal contempt. Whether it's one or one thousand deaths it is one too many. Hence why with "no skin on the game" my dislike is equal.

You and others, as is your right may be happy taking sides but me.... I hold the IDF and Hamas in equal contempt
It is the people on both sides I feel sorry for hence why I would like to see anything that can alleviate the killing happen. It itks me when people can condemn one side, when both sides are equally guilty - just makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top