Word Association (2024)

[Srikcir]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And some posters will insist on off-topic deflections.

It's not an off-topic deflection but an unspoken subject that reflects back on badly for a supposed democratic Israeli.

A Jewish theocratic state would more likely accept a one-state solution with the Palestinians becoming stateless with the sovereignty of Israel. Palestinians would not be eligible to hold elected office. A secular, democratic Israel should be more acceptable with a one-state solution with the Palestinians having full rights as Israeli citizens.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, car720 said:

I  don't know if I am biased.  I don't particularly like any of them at all.

I cannot help remembering Lebanon though from several years back when it used to be one of the banking capitols of the world and also an extremely beautiful place so I also wonder what strife abounded in Palestine before it was  occupied.  Is occupied the right word?

 

That's ok, I know you are. Kinda obvious.

 

As for you memories of Lebanon - exaggerations a-la "one of the banking capitols of the world" aside, it is a beautiful country. Then, of course, there the question of relevance - are you referencing the Lebanese civil war? The Syrian occupation? Or simply trying to single out Israel's military adventurism in this regard, while pretending to be not  "biased"?

 

And, of course, being the non "biased" poster that you are - no mention of the Jordanian occupation and annexation of the West Bank, no mention of the Egyptian occupation of the Gaza Strip, and no mention of any Palestinian violence whatsoever, ever.

[FreddieRoyle]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Why don't you comply to forum rules and provide links to your claims? In this case link to the far right web site from which you gained the content. I assume you don't, as links to far right inflammatory sites is generally contrary to forum rules and more often than not, removed by the Mods. 

 

If you read them you will know that stalking is against forum rules.

DO NOT PM ME

[sanemax]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Why don't you comply to forum rules and provide links to your claims? In this case link to the far right web site from which you gained the content. I assume you don't, as links to far right inflammatory sites is generally contrary to forum rules and more often than not, removed by the Mods. 

 

Do you have internet access ?

Is so, google "synagogue in Gothenberg,Sweden "

And the results will appear

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city under UN supervision, and was never part of Israel in the UN charter.

The UN had only just begun, but failed in its first major test when it allowed the terms of the charter creating Israel to be voided, just because the US sided with Israel.

It has since shown itself to be completely useless in conflict resolution, but that is down to the corrupt veto system which made the entire project a nonsense from the beginning.

It is worth remembering that Israel would never have existed now if the Russians had vetoed it, but for some reason they did not.

 

Guess you won't get into the part where the Arab countries and the Palestinian leadership rejected the partition plan and the UN resolution. Much easier to present it as a one-sided issue. The USA support in Israel was far from solid back in the day, there was even an arms embargo during the 1948 war. Not a word about them Arab countries and the Palestinians not accepting the "terms of the charter" never mind "voiding" them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Palestine has probably been "occupied" for all of human history, but the Romans, the Turks, the British and now the Zionists are the best known.

 

They are actually called Israelis, not Zionists. And, yes, most people do tend to skip the Jordanian and Egyptian bits. Of course, what some posters consider to be Palestine includes the State of Israel...

Edited December 10, 2017 by Morch

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Had the project been carried out properly and Israel confined to the 1948 borders, with Jerusalem an international city, the world would have been spared much blood and treasure.

 

 

And that wouldn't have anything to do with the other side's rejection, naturally. And surely, if they had accepted,  it would have peacefully abide by the terms. Yeah, that's exactly how things go in the Middle East.

 

Topic, though, is ain't about posters fantasies, revisionist historical accounts or any of the many other usual deflections:

Hamas calls for Palestinian uprising against Israel.

 

 

[stevenl]

32 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

But it is worth noting that the target picked is not Israeli or American. The pattern of carrying out such attacks on targets not directly associated somehow seems to be almost taken for granted with some. I would venture that if there was such an attack carried out on a Swedish mosque, under a similar pretext, some of the usual suspects would cry foul rather than take it in their stride.

Please stop this endless speculating on other members opinions. You're presuming things not stated or intended, and sending these out as gospel.

 

It makes your posts less and less attractive to read due to all the spin.

 

I once appreciated your posts on this subject, stated so here on the board as well, but your personal opinions are deminishing them more and more.

Edited December 10, 2017 by stevenl

[Morch]

@Srikcir

 

The topic is : Hamas calls for Palestinian uprising against Israel.

 

You assertions as to what might have been if Israel was not Israel (without getting into the part where you do not discuss the Palestinian being the Palestinians, but treat them as a neutral player) are related to the topic in a roundabout way, if that.

 

Notably, there's nothing in your musings which relates to the Hamas (that object of the topic) - Does the Hamas call for an uprising because it wants a peaceful one-state solution? Or is the Hamas characterized by any liberal, secular traits?

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Please stop this endless speculating on other members opinions. You're presuming things not stated or intended, and sending these out as gospel.

 

It makes your posts less and less attractive to read due to all the spin.

 

I once appreciated your posts on this subject, stated so here on the board as well, but your personal opinions are deminishing them more and more.

 

Please stop your endless deflections. A short visit to most topics detailing such hypothetical events as described would net the responses mentioned. I wasn't referring to you specifically, and I don't really mind care all that much as to your personal assessment of my posts. If it bugs you so much, perhaps consider the amount of rubbish posts I respond to...

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Please stop your endless deflections. A short visit to most topics detailing such hypothetical events as described would net the responses mentioned. I wasn't referring to you specifically, and I don't really mind care all that much as to your personal assessment of my posts. If it bugs you so much, perhaps consider the amount of rubbish posts I respond to...

Your posts used to be good, now they're just the rubbish posts you claim to be responding to. Really sad.

I won't be seeing them anymore.

[simple1]

18 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Do you have internet access ?

Is so, google "synagogue in Gothenberg,Sweden "

And the results will appear

Personally I find those supporting / promoting far right content to be despised and view them as a threat to our societies, as do most Western government security agencies. 

[sanemax]

10 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Personally I find those supporting / promoting far right content to be despised and view them as a threat to our societies, as do most Western government security agencies. 

You didnt do a websearch, did you ?

Let me do one for you 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/firebombs-hurled-at-synagogue-in-sweden-after-protest-march-over-jerusalem/

   I would hardly call the Times of Israel a far right web site

[Ron19]

Two off topic posts have been removed.

[simple1]

51 minutes ago, sanemax said:

You didnt do a websearch, did you ?

Let me do one for you 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/firebombs-hurled-at-synagogue-in-sweden-after-protest-march-over-jerusalem/

   I would hardly call the Times of Israel a far right web site

Yes I did. The content from the person you're supporting originated from a far right hate site. Your choice to support such people, though I do not understand why supporting an ideology contrary to advice from our security forces is deemed acceptable.

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Yes I did. The content from the person you're supporting originated from a far right hate site. Your choice to support such people, though I do not understand why supporting an ideology contrary to advice from our security forces is deemed acceptable.

I am not sure what you are accusing me of , I simple did a websearch and posted the results

A am not supporting anyone and if this news is posted on a far right website , it makes to difference to the facts or content of this story .

[simple1]

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

<snip> if this news is posted on a far right website , it makes to difference to the facts or content of this story .

Incorrect, the content is a distortion. To repeat, people supporting the far right are acting against the advice of our national security services. 

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There is no "intifada", other than in your posts which echo Hamas propaganda.

 

Two members of Hamas military wing were killed when a Hamas post was attacked in retaliation for rockets launched from the Gaza Strip. That there were civilians, and worse, kids, injured is unfortunate - but does not really have a whole lot to do with your bogus "most moral army" meme.

 

As you very well know, and was repeated on many previous topics - the understandings reached after the last round of fighting are that Hamas is responsible when it comes to rockets launched. Can't claim to be the sovereign power in the Gaza Strip, and not be held responsible. That you do not like it, or refuse to accept facts and reality, does not change either one bit.

 

Your descriptions of "peaceful demonstration" are misleading. Enough pictures and clips around - not quite what you're trying to sell. In your world, of course, police forces allow demonstrations to take place wherever, and demonstrators do whatever. Reality is, of course, different.

 

I guess that you will use your default pitiful excuses to justify or ignore any Palestinian violence associated with the demonstrations. 

 

>>Two members of Hamas military wing were killed when a Hamas post was attacked in retaliation for rockets launched from the Gaza Strip. That there were civilians, and worse, kids, injured is unfortunate - but does not really have a whole lot to do with your bogus "most moral army" meme.
 ...strikes me as immoral for Israel to fire its so called precision weapons supposedly at a Hamas training ground, which result in 6 children injured, one seriously. If Israel collectively punishes Hamas for every violent act in Gaza even though prepetrated by another faction, then does that make illegal settlers fair game retaliation for every violent illegal colonists' act?

>>Your descriptions of "peaceful demonstration" are misleading. 
...as usual you attempt to muddy the waters. From all the footage I have seen the demonstrations in Salah Eddin shopping area (in my link  above) were peaceful. The only brutality was from the horseback police whipping protestors and punching women in the face.
 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Two members of Hamas military wing were killed when a Hamas post was attacked in retaliation for rockets launched from the Gaza Strip. That there were civilians, and worse, kids, injured is unfortunate - but does not really have a whole lot to do with your bogus "most moral army" meme.
 ...strikes me as immoral for Israel to fire its so called precision weapons supposedly at a Hamas training ground, which result in 6 children injured, one seriously. If Israel collectively punishes Hamas for every violent act in Gaza even though prepetrated by another faction, then does that make illegal settlers fair game retaliation for every violent illegal colonists' act?

>>Your descriptions of "peaceful demonstration" are misleading. 
...as usual you attempt to muddy the waters. From all the footage I have seen the demonstrations in Salah Eddin shopping area (in my link  above) were peaceful. The only brutality was from the horseback police whipping protestors and punching women in the face.
 

 

Milk it to the max. Helps focusing on the agenda, innit?

 

Your pathetic attempt at moral grandstanding would be a tad more believable had you expressed any such qualms over rockets launched at Israel (which, to remind, was the reason for Israel's aerial strike) without much care as to where or whom they might hit. As far as I can understand from reports, the injured Palestinian civilians were nearby residents, guess that placing one's military/militant facilities next door to civilians equates with righteousness in your book.

 

Not that I think even you follow the twisted logic of your further deflection - but to address facts again, the understandings on which the last round of fighting ended are that Hamas is responsible. If you wish to argue the point, take it up with the Hamas.

 

The only one muddying the waters is yourself (see above). Portraying demonstrations as peaceful, while ignoring any bit of violence associated with Palestinian demonstrates is not only lame, but simply dishonest.

 

 

[dexterm]

42 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Milk it to the max. Helps focusing on the agenda, innit?

 

Your pathetic attempt at moral grandstanding would be a tad more believable had you expressed any such qualms over rockets launched at Israel (which, to remind, was the reason for Israel's aerial strike) without much care as to where or whom they might hit. As far as I can understand from reports, the injured Palestinian civilians were nearby residents, guess that placing one's military/militant facilities next door to civilians equates with righteousness in your book.

 

Not that I think even you follow the twisted logic of your further deflection - but to address facts again, the understandings on which the last round of fighting ended are that Hamas is responsible. If you wish to argue the point, take it up with the Hamas.

 

The only one muddying the waters is yourself (see above). Portraying demonstrations as peaceful, while ignoring any bit of violence associated with Palestinian demonstrates is not only lame, but simply dishonest.

 

 

>>Your pathetic attempt at moral grandstanding would be a tad more believable had you expressed any such qualms over rockets launched at Israel (which, to remind, was the reason for Israel's aerial strike) without much care as to where or whom they might hit. 
...I have in the past condemned indiscriminate rocket fire (yes by Palestinians..make a note now just in case it slips your mind and you misrepresent me in future) that might harm innocent civilians, as I do Israel's rocket artillery and missile strikes with far more sophisticated guidance whose collateral damage they know for sure will harm innocent civilians, since 2 million Palestinians are hemmed into an open prison called Gaza 5 by 25 miles. They must have forgotten to drop the leaflets this time saying: you have 30 seconds before we kill and maim you.
Hamas did not even fire the rockets but they and innocent civilians are being collectively punished, also a war crime in the Geneva Convention. 

 

>>The only one muddying the waters is yourself (see above). Portraying demonstrations as peaceful, while ignoring any bit of violence associated with Palestinian demonstrates is not only lame, but simply dishonest.
..ah, so you were there then? I unfortunately only had the international award winning Scottish reporter Alan Fisher's word (see link above) for the brutal Israeli treatment of peaceful demonstrators.

Edited December 10, 2017 by dexterm

[Morch]

Just now, dexterm said:

>>Your pathetic attempt at moral grandstanding would be a tad more believable had you expressed any such qualms over rockets launched at Israel (which, to remind, was the reason for Israel's aerial strike) without much care as to where or whom they might hit. 
...I have in the past condemned indiscriminate rocket fire (yes by Palestinians..make a note now just in case it slips your mind and you misrepresent me in future) that might harm innocent civilians, as I do Israel's rocket artillery and missile strikes with far more sophisticated guidance whose collateral damage they know for sure will harm innocent civilians, since 2 million Palestinians are hemmed into an open prison called Gaza 5 by 25 miles. They must have forgotten to drop the leaflets this time saying: you have 30 seconds before we kill and maim you.
Hamas did not even fire the rockets but they and innocent civilians are being collectively punished, also a war crime against the Geneva Convention. 

 

>>The only one muddying the waters is yourself (see above). Portraying demonstrations as peaceful, while ignoring any bit of violence associated with Palestinian demonstrates is not only lame, but simply dishonest.
..ah, so you were there then? I unfortunately only had the international award winning Scottish reporter Alan Fisher's word for the brutal Israeli treatment of peaceful demonstrators.

 

Considering the number of times you've been caught out posting porkies, or "mere" inaccuracies I'll pass on taking any claims you make for granted. And given that the overriding principal seems to be ignoring anything that doesn't fit the agenda, there's little reason to. Noticeably, you do not do so on these recent topics.

 

As for your faulty reasoning, and your grasp of what is and isn't allowed in modern warfare - we've been there done that as well. Indiscriminate fire is a no no, hitting civilian after taking reasonable precautions is within bounds. There are legal guidelines for specifying most of this, and whether you like it or not, your wholesale legal and moral pronouncements are not necessarily based on solid ground. Again, been done to death on previous topics, but do go on about "taking note". Further (and, of course, also previously discussed) the point about population density in the Gaza Strip goes against Hamas' practice of locating its facilities using the local population as a shield. Another no  no. And to  head of expected rehashed bogus comments, yes - the Hamas is capable of placing it's installations in a way that would pose less of a risk for Palestinian civilians. That's without even getting to the issue of money spent on constructing underground facilities and tunnels for its own use, and providing naught for the population. Your assertion that Israel knew for sure civilians would be hurt is unsubstantiated.

 

You may repeat the bit about Hamas not being the one launching the rockets this time, but still being targeted. It was addressed enough times even on recent topics (including this one), never mind previous ones. That you insist on ignoring facts and making up new rules does not change reality. The Geneva Convention doesn't really apply with regard to these attacks on the Hamas, if Hamas is the so-called sovereign, then it bears the responsibility, a war crime in your twisted take on things, perhaps.

 

As for the yet another shot at waving names - hype Al Jazeera's coverage as much as you like, but its not the only game in town nor is there shortage of images portraying the violence. Like it or not, deny it or not, this is something the Palestinians engage in as well.

 

[Grouse]

He's behind you!

[Catoni]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Had the project been carried out properly and Israel confined to the 1948 borders, with Jerusalem an international city, the world would have been spared much blood and treasure.

 

      Well.... there was a little something about Arab nations launching military attacks and war on Israel (1973 Yom Kippur War anyone?....Intifadas perhaps ?  Also retaliation for bus and pizza parlour and restaurant bombings... ad infinitum )  

Edited December 10, 2017 by Catoni

[dexterm]

2 minutes ago, Catoni said:

      Well.... there was a little something about Arab nations launching millitary attacks and war on Israel (1973 Yom Kippur War anyone?....Intifadas perhaps ?  Also retaliation for bus and pizza parlour and restaurant bombings... ad infinitum )  

Off topic. We are not discussing Egypt's 1973 Yom Kippur war.

[Grouse]

22 hours ago, Grouse said:

I get so bored hearing about Israel. The Jewish people represent less than 0.1% of the world's population but goodness me they make a lot of noise!

 

Look, I get it. I've read the ancient history (Sharma's History of Jerusalem). I am horrified at what happened to the diaspora in Europe in the first half of the last century (my stomach turns every time I read Schindler's Lift!). BUT the UK gave you a homeland. Please play nicely with your neighbours, treat them well.

Which bit do you find confusing Dundee 48? Happy to explain if you so desire!

[dexterm]

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Considering the number of times you've been caught out posting porkies, or "mere" inaccuracies I'll pass on taking any claims you make for granted. And given that the overriding principal seems to be ignoring anything that doesn't fit the agenda, there's little reason to. Noticeably, you do not do so on these recent topics.

 

As for your faulty reasoning, and your grasp of what is and isn't allowed in modern warfare - we've been there done that as well. Indiscriminate fire is a no no, hitting civilian after taking reasonable precautions is within bounds. There are legal guidelines for specifying most of this, and whether you like it or not, your wholesale legal and moral pronouncements are not necessarily based on solid ground. Again, been done to death on previous topics, but do go on about "taking note". Further (and, of course, also previously discussed) the point about population density in the Gaza Strip goes against Hamas' practice of locating its facilities using the local population as a shield. Another no  no. And to  head of expected rehashed bogus comments, yes - the Hamas is capable of placing it's installations in a way that would pose less of a risk for Palestinian civilians. That's without even getting to the issue of money spent on constructing underground facilities and tunnels for its own use, and providing naught for the population. Your assertion that Israel knew for sure civilians would be hurt is unsubstantiated.

 

You may repeat the bit about Hamas not being the one launching the rockets this time, but still being targeted. It was addressed enough times even on recent topics (including this one), never mind previous ones. That you insist on ignoring facts and making up new rules does not change reality. The Geneva Convention doesn't really apply with regard to these attacks on the Hamas, if Hamas is the so-called sovereign, then it bears the responsibility, a war crime in your twisted take on things, perhaps.

 

As for the yet another shot at waving names - hype Al Jazeera's coverage as much as you like, but its not the only game in town nor is there shortage of images portraying the violence. Like it or not, deny it or not, this is something the Palestinians engage in as well.

 

>>hitting civilian after taking reasonable precautions is within bounds. 
..ah well,  perhaps we will hear more of that if the Palestinians prosecute Israel in the ICC, or perhaps if Israel stopped refusing to allow its soldiers to testify before the UN and other international tribunals, or perhaps if Israel did not try to stifle the honest testimonies of its soldiers in home grown organizations such a http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/. Methinks Israel has something to hide.
I am not holding my breath to hear the verified "reasonable precautions is within bounds"

 

>The Geneva Convention doesn't really apply 
...ah there's the usual fence sitting language. Which means of course that Israel is in breach of the Geneva Convention by collective punishment of Hamas, and the resultant child casuaties.

 

It's all very well discussing legalistic niceties, but the bottom line is some Israeli consciously gave the order to respond to a group other than Hamas with disproportionater force knowing full well that civilian casualties would probably result, with a child now fighting for life.

 

If Israel wishes to maintian a high moral ground, it should act morally and more responsibly in the 21st century, not with an archaic biblical eye for eye mentality

[Grouse]

24 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Which bit do you find confusing Dundee 48? Happy to explain if you so desire!

Do you not understand recursion? You keep calling the same global sub routine?

Edited December 10, 2017 by Grouse

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>hitting civilian after taking reasonable precautions is within bounds. 
..ah well,  perhaps we will hear more of that if the Palestinians prosecute Israel in the ICC, or perhaps if Israel stopped refusing to allow its soldiers to testify before the UN and other international tribunals, or perhaps if Israel did not try to stifle the honest testimonies of its soldiers in home grown organizations such a http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/. Methinks Israel has something to hide.
I am not holding my breath to hear the verified "reasonable precautions is within bounds"

 

>The Geneva Convention doesn't really apply 
...ah there's the usual fence sitting language. Which means of course that Israel is in breach of the Geneva Convention by collective punishment of Hamas, and the resultant child casuaties.

 

It's all very well discussing legalistic niceties, but the bottom line is some Israeli consciously gave the order to respond to a group other than Hamas with disproportionater force knowing full well that civilian casualties would probably result, with a child now fighting for life.

 

If Israel wishes to maintian a high moral ground, it should act morally and more responsibly in the 21st century, not with an archaic biblical eye for eye mentality

 

More of your standard issue spins.

 

As expected, you are simply using these topics as a platform for laying out your extreme views, and rarely reply to point made. Breaking the Silence are irrelevant to the point made in my post and to the current aerial strike on the Hamas. Whether you like to admit it or not, your version of what is and isn't allowed in warfare simply doesn't stack with reality.

 

Do you feel that desperate that you have to edit my posts and quote my words out of context? Pathetic.

My actual post said that " The Geneva Convention doesn't really apply with regard to these attacks on the Hamas", and not as you dishonest partial quote implies - a wholesale statement. Your lies continue, as you ignore the rest of the sentence - "if Hamas is the so-called sovereign, then it bears the responsibility..". What spin will you put on it now?

 

The one who brought up supposed "legal" points was yourself. Now when "legal" nonsense is dealt with, its no longer important and you move on to some other bogus deflections. Lets see about these..oh, they are actually more "legal" points:

 

Hamas is supposedly the sovereign force in the Gaza Strip. This means it is responsible for acts of aggression emanating from the Gaza Strip. If you don't like this arrangement, complain to the Hamas. As for the "disproportionate" canard - three rockets launched, one aerial attack in response, sounds about right. There is no obligation to respond on exactly the same terms, even if you think there is. And once more, you do not have any real insight as to what planners of the aerial strike knew or not, yet present things as facts. One could answer that if that bothered you much, you'd comment about Hamas not doing much to make things safer for the Palestinian population, either by locating its installations elsewhere or investing in public defenses.

 

As for the extra moral grandstanding, guess no such expectations from the Hamas specifically or the Palestinians in general. Nothing against launching them rockets to begin with, knowing they will result in a response and probable casualties. Nothing against Hamas placing the people of Gaza in harm's way. Same old.

 

Milk it for all its worth. Helps focusing on the agenda.

[dexterm]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

More of your standard issue spins.

 

As expected, you are simply using these topics as a platform for laying out your extreme views, and rarely reply to point made. Breaking the Silence are irrelevant to the point made in my post and to the current aerial strike on the Hamas. Whether you like to admit it or not, your version of what is and isn't allowed in warfare simply doesn't stack with reality.

 

Do you feel that desperate that you have to edit my posts and quote my words out of context? Pathetic.

My actual post said that " The Geneva Convention doesn't really apply with regard to these attacks on the Hamas", and not as you dishonest partial quote implies - a wholesale statement. Your lies continue, as you ignore the rest of the sentence - "if Hamas is the so-called sovereign, then it bears the responsibility..". What spin will you put on it now?

 

The one who brought up supposed "legal" points was yourself. Now when "legal" nonsense is dealt with, its no longer important and you move on to some other bogus deflections. Lets see about these..oh, they are actually more "legal" points:

 

Hamas is supposedly the sovereign force in the Gaza Strip. This means it is responsible for acts of aggression emanating from the Gaza Strip. If you don't like this arrangement, complain to the Hamas. As for the "disproportionate" canard - three rockets launched, one aerial attack in response, sounds about right. There is no obligation to respond on exactly the same terms, even if you think there is. And once more, you do not have any real insight as to what planners of the aerial strike knew or not, yet present things as facts. One could answer that if that bothered you much, you'd comment about Hamas not doing much to make things safer for the Palestinian population, either by locating its installations elsewhere or investing in public defenses.

 

As for the extra moral grandstanding, guess no such expectations from the Hamas specifically or the Palestinians in general. Nothing against launching them rockets to begin with, knowing they will result in a response and probable casualties. Nothing against Hamas placing the people of Gaza in harm's way. Same old.

 

Milk it for all its worth. Helps focusing on the agenda.

More Morch spin and deflection.

 

You disputed the accuracy of a linked report above by a reputable journalist about Israel police on horseback brutally attacking peaceful demonstrators in Jerusalem, which was completely on topic concerning the uprising Hamas called for. You disputed the report by dishonestly introducing events from elsewhere in the West Bank and Gaza, and masquerading them as part of the linked incident.

 

I have posted, still on topic, that if you want to find the truth about what happened then allow independent inquiries, which Israel refuses to do, because it is frightened of the truth, as are you. 

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, dexterm said:

More Morch spin and deflection.

 

You disputed the accuracy of a linked report above by a reputable journalist about Israel police on horseback brutally attacking peaceful demonstrators in Jerusalem, which was completely on topic concerning the uprising Hamas called for. You disputed the report by dishonestly introducing events from elsewhere in the West Bank and Gaza, and masquerading them as part of the linked incident.

 

I have posted, still on topic, that if you want to find the truth about what happened then allow independent inquiries, which Israel refuses to do, because it is frightened of the truth, as are you. 

 

Are you twisting my words or simply having comprehension issues? Hard to tell.

 

I did not dispute the report, even if I do not take it as gospel as you seem to. I pointed out that there's plenty of coverage on the demonstrations and not all of it conforms to your cherry-pick-and-generalize version. That you seem to think any details in any story portraying Israel negatively are the complete and only truth, is your issue. That you cannot address demonstrations actually featuring Palestinian violence - the same demonstrations Hamas called for - is again, just another form of deflection.

 

I'm not afraid of no truth, certainly not from what passes for such in your posts. Deflect some more and don't forget to milk every least bit of it all. Helps focusing on the agenda.