Morch

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You spend so much time attacking Trump that either you have a compulsion to talk about him all the time, or you think that if you keep saying bad things about him he'll just give up. I have my suspicions which, but I'll let you tell me why I'm wrong.

@thaibeachlovers

Rich, coming from someone who seems to have trouble to refrain negatively commenting on Biden, whether he's mentioned or not.

1 minute ago, Brickleberry said:

Hamas figures have been found to be consistently true over each and every conflict since they have been in charge. Do you deny this fact?

 

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033

@Brickleberry

Hamas supplied figures do not differentiate between civilians and combatants.

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

All the above is just a bunch of M! 

I guess you know what M means. Must be one of them personal definitions of yours.

What I posted was accurate, though. Even if you don't like it or agree with it.

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

The IDF figures were a breakdown of their total figures. And I'm sure they have a different total figure than Hamas has. And I'm sure Hamas has a different set of breakdown figures also. 

Who would you think would have the most accurate figures, those creating the deaths, wounding, and displacements, or those that are experiencing it? And, before you get set to scold me again, I'm sure both sides adjust their figures to suit their strategies and tactics.

You cite Hamas provided figures without question.

1 minute ago, WDSmart said:

I never said I have a good grasp of the details. I don't need the details to make a supposition. I can't say I know the facts or the reality because I don't think anyone really does. The "facts" are different depending on who you are reading or listening to online. And this entire war seems unreal to me.

I don't know the names of the leaders. I do know the names of the major parties involved. I do believe I know their ideologies, at least their bottom lines. It really doesn't matter who said what if you can't depend on the who or what they said. You have to make your own suppositions and draw your own conclusions.

Yes, there are a whole lot of things I don't know about this and everything else, but I'll guarantee my suppositions are more correct than your beliefs.

I don't pause before posting anything that interests me and that I want to share. There are some of these Topics that appreciate my neutrality and honesty and have told me so.

Seriously.

Considering you just demonstrated you can't even recall or admit what you posted a few hours ago, that 'never said' bit is laughable.

You don't need details.

You don't need facts.

You have your 'opinions' - and that's what counts.

Gotcha.

You denying the existence of facts is a feature of your posts.

That it's total BS, or that a whole lot of the facts are not disputed, doesn't seem to get through to you.

You do not know who the leaders are.

You do not know which parties are involved.

You most certainly do  not know their ideologies.

This got nothing to do with 'suppositions'.

This is about facts.

Them facts you deny.

Your are not 'neutral', nor are you 'honest'.

3 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I've never held myself to by an "informed" poster. I've held myself to be a poster who watches CNN and reads some of the posts online (outside of AseanNow) about these topics. 

I don't know the names of all those involved, but don't see why that's important. I see the destruction and base my remarks on that. That's good enough for me.

You have certainly said you were aware of things, claimed to have a good grasp of details, facts, reality when it comes to matters at hand. You want to quibble about 'informed'? Go right ahead.

You don't know the names of leaders. You don't know what parties are involved. You do not know their ideologies. You do not know who said what.

A whole lot of things you don't know.

Somehow doesn't give you pause before posting.

Just now, Celsius said:

 

they are trained from kindergarten to terrorize 

 

I'll feel safer in my business class flight thanks to Israeli army.

That's got nothing to do with what you posted, and my reply.

1 minute ago, Celsius said:

 

great. 28,000 less terrorists 

Even Israeli sources claim only a third (or so) of this figure pertains to 'terrorists'.

7 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I don't know who Yoav Gallant is, and anyway, why would I believe him?

And even if this is true, that's still at least 50,000 to 60,000 civilian killed injured. 

And you hold yourself to be an 'informed' poster.

He's Israel's minister of defense. When it suits, you quote him. When it doesn't, you don't know who he is.

Why would you believe Hamas's officials, then? Who are they?

Thought so.

19 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

So you seem to think that every single male killed in Gaza was a militant?

 

Amazing really, Palestinian men must be extremely lucky. Thousands of women and children 'accidentally' killed but every single man was a legitimate target. Do you really expect people to swallow that horse💩?

@Brickleberry

Hamas's ideology actually holds that every Israeli male of military service age is a combatant, regardless of whether they are or not.

23 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

"Netanyahu on Thursday said that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would “soon go into Rafah, Hamas’s last bastion.” The top commander in charge of Israel’s military operation in southern Gaza told CNN on Sunday that there was no plan in place yet for how to minimize civilian deaths in Rafah."
Netanyahu directs Israeli military to draw up plan to evacuate more than one million people from Rafah as offensive looms | CNN

This is just proof of the ongoing military plan to eliminate as many Palestinians from Gaza, and probably soon, the West Bank, as possible. This announcement by Israel is finally having the effect it should have long ago - the waning of support for Israel's bloody onslaught by members of the UN and the entire world community, including the USA.

The citizens of Rafah have no place to go. The IDF's previous commitments to a "safety zone" or "safe passage" have proven to be false, so even if they do propose one, it is not likely that Palestinians will believe them, or that it will be provided as promised.
‘Our last stop is Rafah’: trapped Palestinians await Israeli onslaught | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian

Hopefully, before the IDF can start their indiscriminate killings, the UN and the world's governments will step up and put pressure on Israel to cease and start negotiating a settlement in good faith with the Palestinians instead of just referring to Hamas' latest offer as "delusional."
‘Our last stop is Rafah’: trapped Palestinians await Israeli onslaught | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian

This is just proof of your lack of comprehension of things.

There is no such 'plan' let alone 'proof' of. Other than in your mind, that is.

Probably the West Bank soon? Where does this come from? Anything to support it?

You're just making up stuff as you go along.

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

A quote from the link provided...

 

"We urge Israel to do more to help civilians, knowing full well that it faces an enemy that would never hold itself to those standards – an enemy that cynically embeds itself among men, women, and children, and fires rockets from hospitals, from schools, from mosques, from residential buildings; an enemy whose leaders surround themselves with hostages; an enemy that has declared publicly its goal:  to kill as many innocent civilians as it can, simply because they’re Jews, and to wipe Israel off the map. 

That’s why we’ve made clear that Israel is fully justified in confronting Hamas and other terrorist organizations.  And that’s why the United States has done more than any other country to support Israel’s right to ensure that October 7th never happens again. Israelis were dehumanized in the most horrific way on October 7th."

 

From my reading most Western countries have stated similar sentiments. Countries, including the President of the USA, do caution the Israelis to wind back the level of killing and injuries of the Gazan population whilst recognizing Hamas have made no such commitment / effort to lower civilian casualties. I understand the critique of Israel is, to put it simply, overkill.

 

Netanyahu has now demanded Gazans evacuate Rafah, for an IDF assault, with a current population estimated  at 1.2 million plus; where on earth are they going to go? 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/feb/09/middle-east-crisis-israel-gaza-war-hamas-updates

Yawn. Seriously. You must be joking.

Can you cite many such comments directed at Hamas?

Not ones in which this is brought up in conjunction with Israel's actions?

Can you cite many such from Arab countries supposedly supporting the Palestinians?

16 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Thanks, I didn't know there was a new separate Rafah Topic. I'll post my post there. 

Yeah, it's quite obvious you're not big on the paying-attention department.

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I admitted my typing error and corrected it to what I originally posted with a link four or five posts ago, which is "almost 30,000 were killed and 70,000 wounded." And many more than that displaced.

The hostage exchange tactics were my recommendation only. From what I've recently seen, Hamas offers to do this in just the opposite order.

You claim, "Hamas does not lead all Palestinians, and arguably, not even all Gazans." I don't disagree, but then it's now becoming obvious that Netanyahu and his government do not lead all the Israelis. So, what's the difference? Both of these "leaders" are the ones in charge right now.

Zionists are a right-wing, militant, nationalistic faction that is trying to gain complete control over all the land in the state of Israel.

"Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”)." 
Zionism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts | Britannica
 

So...you're just going to gloss over them lies regarding what you posted about Israelis' intentions? Claiming it wants to kill all the Palestinians etc?

Of these 30,000...how many are Hamas men?

As for the hostage exchange tactics - yes, I'm aware that this was you 'recommendation'. It's been clear from the start. That's exactly the reason it's being criticized. What is it that you don't get about it?

So you claim the Palestinians are led by Hamas on one post, now you do do not disagree with the opposite - which is it? As for Netanyahu and his government do not lead all the Israelis - I've no idea what you mean by that. Netanyahu leads an elected government, and there's a whole lot of public resistance to said government and it's policies. It's how things are in countries supporting a democratic system. The difference would be that on the Palestinian side, there were not elections held for over a decade, so the question of either leadership (Hamas vs. PA/Fatah) legitimacy is questionable. And no, Hamas is not 'in charge' of things in the West Bank, nor really in the Gaza Strip, as of now. If you don't know what you're talking about - why post?

You can go on with your personal nonsense definitions of Zionism. Beyond your closed mind, they do not mean a whole lot. Many Israelis define themselves as Zionist, but vote for Centrist/Left wing parties, or are pro-peace, and support a two-state solution. You claiming otherwise and citing dictionary items which do not even make your point is beyond ridiculous.

8 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

You just don't get it, do you?

 

Israel has clearly stated for decades that it wants UNRWA destroyed. It hates the organization fervently. It has tried to smear it and de fund it for decades. Bibi literally said the victory won't be complete until UNRWA is finished. Yet you still believe the smears and lies, even when independent media in the West - the UK's channel 4 - get a hold of the complete intelligence dossier and found it contained no evidence for any of its accusations. Look at this picture of a crowd in Israel demanding UNRWA must be disbanded.

 

 

Do you believe that Russia really invaded Ukraine to de nazify the country? If not, why do you trust propaganda without any evidence from Israel, but you don't trust propaganda from Russia?

 

Quite simply, the conversation is pointless anyway. Aid needs to enter Gaza. The ICJ has ruled on this, and all signatories to the genocide convention must abide by it. UNRWA is the only agency who is able to deliver aid at this moment in time. The accused have been fired and investigations are ongoing. Now the European Union is backtracking. 

I get that you treat things as facts, regardless of them being proven to be such or not. Or, alternatively, that you cease on anything which might be painted as 'proof' regardless of whether it's been proven or not.

I don't know that Netnayahu actually made the comment you allege, could have missed it. Unlike many of you, I'm pretty consistent in my take on Netanyahu - as in not putting a whole lot of stock in what he says.

No idea what you wanted with that picture, or how it supports your argument.

No idea why you bring Russia/Ukraine into this, either.

You have not actually demonstrated much of your claims. Just a lot of bluster.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The topic is about reservations subsequent to the Israeli report. Nothing in it about reservations previous to that report. All you have to do to prove me wrong is point out where in the OP, previous reservations are referenced. Good luck with that.

 

Whatever the case may be about previous pressure, what is speculative is that serious pressure will make a difference.

 

Yes, My comments were addressed by you. And, as I pointed out, poorly.

 

Whether or not you recognized the validity of the analogy, I made a literal explanation for you. And lead by example? You think this is some kind of feel good Hollywood tale?

You are being disingenuous, at best. Trump's administration already stopped funding once. And reservations regarding UNRWA's failings, actions, attitudes were expressed numerous times by other governments as well. I don't think you're unaware of these.

You can go on about 'speculative'. Given the reasons for said countries not playing a larger role, or not working through UNRWA my comment is solid enough, whereas you got nothing on offer.

You can say 'poorly', doesn't make it so. Didn't think much of your 'comments' either.

Your analogy was irrelevant. Your 'explanation' as well. Highly paid officials bringing up higher costs of underlings meager salaries is not a sign of leadership, but of a disconnect. I think you're over doing the 'you think?' act.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, I'll address this point,  too. If Hamas (and other terrorist groups) is defunct or gravely weakened, then there is no problem. So either way, what's the point?

The point is that if one assumes UNRWA being 'infiltrated' (to quote the Israeli official mentioned in the article linked) by Hamas, then it could be used as a platform for Hamas revival. Also, given UNRWA's past record on playing along with terrorist organizations, spreading hate speech and so on - there are obvious benefits for an overhaul/replacement.

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Also, I "chopped up" your post because I was only addressing one point that you raised. If you think I've altered the meaning of what you posted, take it up with the mods.

Of course you did.

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, comparatively, restrictions in the West Bank were less onerous than those in Gaza. So "easing of restrictions" is setting a very low bar.

 

As for the West Bank vs Gaza. Israel engaged in surreptitiously helping to prop up the Gazan economy so as not to make Hamas look bad in comparison to the economy in the West Bank. You think Israel wants the West Bank Palestinians to see how an economy can flourish in the absence of the kind of harsh restrictions that Israel still imposes on West Bank Palestinians?

I wasn't comparing things to the West Bank. You were.

And some of the measures discussed, like having a port in Gaza, or even an airport - never mind more work options in Israel/Egypt would improve things for Palestinians in general.

I think your description of events and actions is flawed, and biased. Same goes for description of economic conditions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

As usual, you're injecting your views into the exchange, masked as 'you think?' bits. Low. Expected.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

1)There is nothing in that article about any reservations countries might have had previous to the Israeli report. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. So your claim that a change might move the previously reluctant to donate (or increase donations)  has no basis in this article. So your suggestion that I go back and read the article is pointless.

 

2)Whether they weren't seriously pressured or whether even if serious pressure would result in any change, is highly speculative.

 

3)As I pointed out, and the article goes into more detail, it will be hugely difficult to accomplish this. And for what? It seems highly unlikely given that sentiments of the Gazans,  that there wouldn't be some among those 13,000 employees who would also be terrorists. Does cost vs benefits mean anything to you? Of course, if Israel elminates the terrorist threat, or reduces it to near zero, then that problem is solved.

 

And another deflection. Instead of addressing the validity of the analogy, you engage in more distraction. So let me put it in a way that's more congenial to the literal-minded: The salary of those officials, being relatively few in number is irrelevant to the fact that it would cost a lot more to pay replacement workers.  

 

The topic itself is about such reservations. Similar issues came up in the past. I understand that you now imagine I should ignore anything but the article you linked, but that's not obligatory. My suggestion was that you go and read the OP - as in the first post on this topic.

That they were not seriously pressured is not speculative. That such a pressure plus changes in the political situation (as in Hamas out of the picture, PA reformed) is rather probable.

You can 'point out' whatever you like. Your comments were already addressed.

I don't recognize the validity of the analogy. I'm not interested in your analogies. My comment was about 'lead by example'.

5 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

It is an Israeli tactic to try and separate Gaza & West Bank.

 

The two places are not separate, they are both parts of a future Palestinian state, and they are both under occupation. When things kick off in the Gaza strip, they are not just about things happening there, they are responding to events happening in the West Bank - and vice versa.

 

The facts are thus. Israel has broken every single ceasefire that has ever been enacted - by continuing to build and expand settlements in the West Bank. Hamas will never stop until Israel abides by international law and leaves the occupied territories.

 

If you want to know the facts, listen to Noam Chomsky.

The first part of your post have nothing to do with the topic at hand, or even my comment. No idea what you wanted with that. Also, whether you like to acknowledge it or not, the political schism among the Palestinians is not Israel's doing (even if Netanyahu used and leveraged it).

It is not true that Israel broke 'every single ceasefire'. That's just you blabbering. There were ceasefires with Hamas, for example, which did not include any conditions regarding settlements etc. Why you post such nonsense is beyond me.

Hamas is not interested in 'international law', and its agenda does not end with Israel leaving the occupied territories. Hamas's agenda is about Israel being destroyed, dismantled, and a Palestinian State replacing it. Again, more nonsense from you.

Noam Chomsky is not actually an expert on these things. Not his field of expertise by a long shot. And evidently, you cannot make your case by yourself....

11 hours ago, Masterton said:

 

Not sure he made up the tag MSM, but he was certainly the first 'mainstream' person to use the term 'fake news', which is basically a simplified way of stating that the media create pseudo events and then use them as an excuse to slander people. I completely disagree that Trump drew first blood, in fact Trump was the first person to stand up to the dishonest media and fight back. The media mercilessly attacked Trump from the moment he declared he was running for President, mainly because he committed the cardinal sin of running as a Republican. If Trump ran as a Democrat, he would be their darling.

That's not even true.

The 'fake news' label was originally used to describe Trump, and pro-Trump propaganda.

Trump & Co. simply started using it in response, regardless of what was said/presented.

1 hour ago, retarius said:

If true, I look forward to them being rapidly overwhelmed by Russia on their way to a quick Russian victory in the spring of 2024. I suspect it is not true. I suspect the missing ammo is still in storage awaiting sale on the back market or use by Ukraine's nazis if their situation gets dire.

@retarius

I suspect you're making things up.

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Arab countries barely donate to UNRWA, and attack the West for giving millions

After several countries announced that they were halting their funding to the Palestinian refugee relief agency UNRWA following information that some of the agency's employees participated in the October 7 massacre, a number of Arab countries spoke out against the decision.

It is important to note that UNRWA's main source of funding is donor countries - which come mainly from the West, and not from the Muslim world. In the list of the 20 countries that contributed the highest amounts to the agency in 2022, The only Muslim countries are Saudi Arabia, in eighth place, with a donation of $27 million, and Qatar in 20th place , with a contribution of $10.5 million. Turkey is also on the list, in 10th place, with a contribution of slightly more than $25 million.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkahwhe56

Some Arab countries donate funds/aid directly rather than going through UNRWA etc. For some it's about issues with the  PA, for others issues with Hamas, and some don't contribute at all. It's rather complicated, and involves endless bickering among parties involved. The bottom line is that they could do better. For example, all that Qatari money going to civilian projects rather than to Hamas projects.