Yellowtail

What onlookers? And if they were indeed looking on, how would they know?

If you steal my car, and I later rape your daughter while you are forced to watch, then I gut cut your baby out of your wife, and set them both on fire, and then I kill you and burn your house down, are we square?

You've already proudly admitted you redefine actions to mean whatever you want them to mean, why should war crimes be any different?

Have you ever driven drunk? Is that why you think it's common? Have you NEVER made a late payment? If so, you lied on the application.

Nothing the left does counts, we know.

Really? You think there are more people that drive drunk than lie on loan applications? Speeding maybe.

Yes, but everyone is not as smart as you. A lot of others might think wow, Chiang Mai is a pretty big area, how far does one want to walk/ride/drive to buy dishes? I'm in Bangkok, and there's not much I'd want to drive to Nong Chok for, certainly not a few cheap plates.

Really? What do you base that on?

When people do not say where they are, what should they expect? A lot of people just use the "View new content" button.

How many additional dead Allied servicemen would have been appropriate to avoid these bombings? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? How many? Let's not forget that a huge percentage of the Allied servicemen, and virtually all the of the additional Allied servicemen that would have had to have died to avoid bombing Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilian children a few years before the bombings.

What point? Did you get my point that what you did was intellectually lazy? Do you think me calling you out for it is me attacking you personally?

You do not support freedom of the press?

So, you change the subject? Typical. You claimed army and police were legitimate military targets, yes? Again: One could argue servicemen are legitimate targets of war, but police? Again: Oh, and when did Palestine declare war on Irael, I missed that. How many Jewish babies have to die before you're happy?

I thought you were attacking a Rabbi in Israel for what they said. Apparently, you were not, Sorry, my mistake.

No, I don't think so. You attacked someone for what they said but did not quote or even paraphrase what they said that you are attacking them for. What do you call it?

Yes, when other poster tell ridiculous lies like the ones you tell, I call them out the same as I called you out. But I think you (so far) have the record for the most ridiculous effort to cover for a lie one has been called out on when you posted the link to the WW1 carrier, the HMS Argus and claimed the UK as sending it, even though it had been sold for scrap over fifty years ago. That was a howler!

Another person that does not have any idea what carpet-bombing is. The F-35 is a combat aircraft, not a bomber. Yes, calling it a bomber because it carries "bombs", is like calling the RFA Argus an "aircraft carrier" because it has a helicopter hanger.

What did he say? Why do you not pull out and post the parts you think are indefensible? Don't be so intellectually lazy.

I thought you said a million, no?

One could argue servicemen are legitimate targets of war, but police? Oh, and when did Palestine declare war on Irael, I missed that.

So, an even more resounding no when asked to support your claim that: "If there was no oppression, land theft and subjugation of Palestinians by Israelis there would not have been an attack by Hamas.". You are not able to support that claim, so you (as usual) have just posted more nonsense. Indeed, a one-trick-pony, repeating the same unsupported lies over and over. You claim one dead baby it too many, but apparently thousands of dead Jewish babies are not enough for you.

You're lying again. We're not discussing the definition of bombing, we're discussing the definition of carpet-bombing, which you admit you do not understand, yet continue lying claiming Israel is guilty of.

You admit you don't know what it is, but you keep lying and using it because it makes Israel sound bad. Typical

So I'll take that as a no, that you do not have anything to back up your claim that you conveniently and dishonestly deleted in your lazy response. You claimed: "If there was no oppression, land theft and subjugation of Palestinians by Israelis there would not have been an attack by Hamas.". You are not able to support that claim, so you (as usual) have just posted more nonsense. Indeed, a one-trick-pony, repeating the same unsupported lies over and over. How many Jewish babies have to die before you're happy?

Do you have anything to back up the bit above in bold or did you just (as is typical of the bits you post) make it up?