Morch

More hot air when you can't actually make a coherent argument. Later you'll probably claim you're not flaming etc. You're welcome to cite the many countries which had severed relations with Israel etc....or continue living in your fantasy world. Up to you.

70 years ago, Israel did not control the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Jordan and Egypt did. Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967. Unless, of course, your comment was an embrace of the 'river to the sea' position, favored by Hamas.

Yeah....the above captures my meaning exactly - you made an unclear comment, which simply did not make sense and I couldn't understand what you were trying to say.

I have not mentioned any 'underlying motives and thinking', apparent or otherwise. That's something you made up, as you often do. As for the rest of your comment above, you are welcome to either enlighten me or phrase your words in a clearer manner.

Unless I missed something, he doesn't actually produce or reveal any new concrete evidence. It's basically a rehash of what's already known. Given his position, leaning and background - nothing out of the ordinary, but also not quite what's claimed. On the contrary, seems like Iran is playing it rather carefully for now, not getting to directly involved.

Originally you argument seemed to be that carpet bombing is essentially indiscriminate bombing. Now you move the goal posts to fit facts. What would be the point of using expensive guided weapons for 'carpet bombing'? If Israel simply wanted to flatten the Gaza Strip and kill as many people as possible it could have simply used dumb bombs, pound the Gaza Strip indiscriminately, and the whole thing would be long over by now. Reports posted early in this topic assessed that the airstrikes on the Gaza Strip represent about 30%-40% of the IAF operating capability. As said, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yawn. Just pointing out the gap between your opinions and reality.

The Military Expert Has Spoken Again.

Again, I don't think you have a clue as to what you're posting about.

Eh?

Why? You post a decisive comment, as if you have some relevant knowledge, as if you're an expert, as if it's fact - why shouldn't this be pointed out when it's obviously not the case? Other than that, of course I do not agree. It's nonsense.

I disagree you're a military expert. I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Military Expert Has Spoken.

You claimed The latter bit is something you have not supported with anything.

I disagree.

No. The position I put forth is that 'war crimes' are something that is decided through proper investigations following certain procedures. Such are not conducted at this time. Hence.... You, on the other hand, seem to think that announcing 'war crimes' makes them a fact.

Again, this is you making up stuff.

You comment on authors, posters on a regular basis.

You quoted either biased sources, or sources saying there might be war crimes committed. Most actual 'experts' are a wee bit more careful than yourself when commenting about things.

More like you can't address this point. As for the Hague, one may hope, but i doubt any of those involved will actually stand trial there.

You flame constantly. Again, maybe you don't see it this way. Same as confusing your opinions with facts.

More like you think 'war crimes' were. We've been through this several times by now. And, of course, you're deflecting from the actual point - which was your assumption regarding his motivation.

Coming from someone who routinely dodges posts and comments, deflects and so on - that's rich. As for insults - you dish them out all the time. Cry me a river.

He's a right wing politician, aiming to maybe replacing Netanyhu in the future. Politicians say a whole lot of things.

What is it with you and refusing to read stuff? Why do you need everything chewed up for you?