4 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Clearly a case of ethnic cleansing

I see from this article that Netanyahu produced a new map last month of the middle east without Palestine

Germany criticises Netanyahu over 'New Middle East' map without Palestine

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230925-germany-criticises-netanyahu-over-new-middle-east-map-without-palestine/

 

It's clearly wrong, and quite obviously an oversight. But proof? If Israel wanted this it would have happened long ago. One indication would be that it was actually a news story and a headline - as in something that doesn't happen every day.

 

On the other hand, many Palestinians and 'pro-Palestinian' protests include chants of 'river to the sea', and maps of the supposedly 'historical' Palestine (presenting all the territory as Palestinian) are often posted (including on here) or used in Palestinian schools. Not too many headlines on that, not much outrage, and no complaints from the likes of you.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, the problem goes back to 1948.

 

How would you like it if people thousands of miles away decreed that YOU should lose your land so other people could live on it, and then those people made your neighbours refugees so they could have more land?

 

This is not a one sided problem.

 

I doubt there is any hope for a solution now, as there is far too much hate against israel from all over the world, and as long as the US unconditionally supports israel the conflict will continue, and lets not forget that there are a lot of Muslims out there, and many of them ( after this conflict ) hate israelis and are starting to hate Americans as well. Massive demonstrations against israel and america in many Arab countries, as well as demonstrations in support of Palestinians in western countries, including Jews doing a sit down protest in the US congress building.

 

The conflict is already spilling over with attacks from Lebanon and also apparently from Yemen.

It's not going to get settled any time soon, so expect the nightly news to be full of pictures of dead in the future.

 

Also, if OPEC nations turn off the oil like they did in the 1970s, things will get really dire for the west.

Easy question - which governments condemn Israel, at present? Which governments express support for Hamas?

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What about the over 1,000 Palestinian children dead? Are they Hamas? Do they deserve to get blown to bits?

No, they do not. War sucks.

 

Don't intentionally provoke an enemy when you know full well the consequences.

If you choose to do so anyway, prepare for it and do your best to protect your civilians.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Regarding the hospital bombing, there is a lot of effort being put into trying to prove it isn't true, even by a poster on here, but even if the israelis didn't bomb the hospital the important thing is that it could be quite easily believable.

You keep referring to it as 'bombing' - there is no evidence it was bombed.

Israel produced evidence to support claims.

Hamas did not.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Seems that netanyahu is so confident of winning that he is spilling the beans too soon.

I have no doubt myself that he was just waiting for an excuse to carry out this operation, and Hamas just gave it to him.

Certainly, the US pretense of being an honest broker in the Middle East has been exposed as a lie. Will any Arab country trust the US ( or Britain ) after this?

I agree that you have no doubts. Ignorance and bias, yes.

 

If Israel wanted to do the sort of things you alleged there were enough times it could have happened by now. At least you acknowledge that the Hamas attack is enough of a justification.

 

Arab governments don't really care that much about the Palestinians. The USA's position on things is not the focal point of their relations with the USA.

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

No, the important thing is that it is a lie.

How could you be so sure?

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, the problem goes back to 1948.

 

How would you like it if people thousands of miles away decreed that YOU should lose your land so other people could live on it, and then those people made your neighbours refugees so they could have more land?

 

This is not a one sided problem.

 

I doubt there is any hope for a solution now, as there is far too much hate against israel from all over the world, and as long as the US unconditionally supports israel the conflict will continue, and lets not forget that there are a lot of Muslims out there, and many of them ( after this conflict ) hate israelis and are starting to hate Americans as well. Massive demonstrations against israel and america in many Arab countries, as well as demonstrations in support of Palestinians in western countries, including Jews doing a sit down protest in the US congress building.

 

The conflict is already spilling over with attacks from Lebanon and also apparently from Yemen.

It's not going to get settled any time soon, so expect the nightly news to be full of pictures of dead in the future.

 

Also, if OPEC nations turn off the oil like they did in the 1970s, things will get really dire for the west.

Much further back than 1948.

The NY Times finally admitted they screwed up

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The NY Times finally admitted they screwed up

Your link requires a paid subscription therefore it is invalid... setting that aside... once again all the liberal lefties who bask in the rhetoric spouted from this source are left stranded in their convictions that Israel was the culprit as the NYTimes originally stated... and how many other times have these same people been led astray by the wrongful reporting of this source 

5 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Your link requires a paid subscription therefore it is invalid... setting that aside... once again all the liberal lefties who bask in the rhetoric spouted from this source are left stranded in their convictions that Israel was the culprit as the NYTimes originally stated... and how many other times have these same people been led astray by the wrongful reporting of this source 

 

Isn't it important to correct mistakes, do all media outlets correct them? 

 

Here's the no paywall link for you, its not hard https://archive.ph/QBjUM

 

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

Isn't it important to correct mistakes, do all media outlets correct them? 

 

Here's the no paywall link for you, its not hard https://archive.ph/QBjUM

 

It would be even better if the standard were raised that prevented "mistakes" from the press reporting on major worldwide events from being made... like waiting until the facts prove out before stating your opinion as fact only to be wrong 

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

It would be even better if the standard were raised that prevented "mistakes" from the press reporting on major worldwide events from being made... like waiting until the facts prove out before stating your opinion as fact only to be wrong 

 

Well then you'd be waiting for reports for a very long time then wouldn't you, facts are not always available until after investigations..duh........

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The NY Times finally admitted they screwed up

If you are claiming that they now say israel didn't do it you must have read a different version to the one you quoted.

 

The relevant words are from that article and I quote them

 

"The Times continued to update its coverage as more information became available, reporting the disputed claims of responsibility and noting that the death toll might be lower than initially reported. Within two hours, the headline and other text at the top of the website reflected the scope of the explosion and the dispute over responsibility."

 

the dispute over responsibility is not the same as "Hamas did it"

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you are claiming that they now say israel didn't do it you must have read a different version to the one you quoted.

 

The relevant words are from that article and I quote them

 

"The Times continued to update its coverage as more information became available, reporting the disputed claims of responsibility and noting that the death toll might be lower than initially reported. Within two hours, the headline and other text at the top of the website reflected the scope of the explosion and the dispute over responsibility."

 

the dispute over responsibility is not the same as "Hamas did it"

 

There's not much of dispute, by now. Hamas produced no evidence to counter allegation. Nada. Available evidence support Israel's version.

Unless you think the aliens did it, and got proof, I suggest your go back to informing the forum what Al Jazeera reports (or better yet, not).

23 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

Well then you'd be waiting for reports for a very long time then wouldn't you, facts are not always available until after investigations..duh........

So what... wait for the facts or terrorize with false statements... you are happy to be fed the wrong information quickly rather than the truth a few hours later... no wonder the world is in the state that it's in.

42 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So what... wait for the facts or terrorize with false statements... you are happy to be fed the wrong information quickly rather than the truth a few hours later... no wonder the world is in the state that it's in.

Ok cool, I suggest you stay away from reading any breaking news stories, up to you

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Ok cool, I suggest you stay away from reading any breaking news stories, up to you

HAHA... "breaking news" that's false is a form of terrorism.

2 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

HAHA... "breaking news" that's false is a form of terrorism.

 

By its very definition breaking news are developing stories, stay away from them fella, they do not always contain all the facts, you've been warned...............lol

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

By its very definition breaking news are developing stories, stay away from them fella, they do not always contain all the facts, you've been warned...............lol

That's my point... thanks... they are reported as fact and are not vetted... it's MSN terrorism... that's the problem... the recent example is The New York Times inciting antisemitism...  https://www.nytimes.com › 2023 › 10 › 17 › world › middleeast › gaza-hospital-explosion-israel.html

6 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

That's my point... thanks... they are reported as fact and are not vetted... it's MSN terrorism... that's the problem... the recent example is The New York Times inciting antisemitism...  https://www.nytimes.com › 2023 › 10 › 17 › world › middleeast › gaza-hospital-explosion-israel.html

Terrorism......lol. oh the rage....

On 10/24/2023 at 6:43 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

If you are claiming that they now say israel didn't do it you must have read a different version to the one you quoted.

 

The relevant words are from that article and I quote them

 

"The Times continued to update its coverage as more information became available, reporting the disputed claims of responsibility and noting that the death toll might be lower than initially reported. Within two hours, the headline and other text at the top of the website reflected the scope of the explosion and the dispute over responsibility."

 

the dispute over responsibility is not the same as "Hamas did it"

Why do you listen to politically oriented NYT  about a technical issue? 

 

AP visual analysis: Rocket from Gaza appeared to go astray, likely caused deadly hospital explosion

 

If you only consider technical analysis from people with expertise, the case is closed. Aside from seeing the Hamas rocket flame out and fall on the hospital, there is not a shred of evidence it was from Israel. 

 

Edit: Sheesh.

 

17 minutes ago, rabas said:

Why do you listen to politically oriented NYT  about a technical issue? 

 

AP visual analysis: Rocket from Gaza appeared to go astray, likely caused deadly hospital explosion

 

If you only consider technical analysis from people with expertise, the case is closed. Aside from seeing the Hamas rocket flame out and fall on the hospital, there is not a shred of evidence it was from Israel. 

 

Edit: Sheesh.

 

Not to mention that the actual rockets themselves are glossed over. These are by definition terror weapons, fired indiscriminately into civilian areas with the intent to kill and maim the innocent. Yet that rather important fact is never mentioned.  The media treats them as if they were just oversized fireworks.

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Not to mention that the actual rockets themselves are glossed over. These are by definition terror weapons, fired indiscriminately into civilian areas with the intent to kill and maim the innocent. Yet that rather important fact is never mentioned.  The media treats them as if they were just oversized fireworks.

 

Very true:

 

Even Palestinian officials acknowledged Hamas’ rockets were war crimes. “Each and every missile against Israel constitutes a crime against humanity whether it hits or misses, because it is directed at civilian targets.”

https://www.standwithus.com/factsheets-hamas-war-crimes

21 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Terrorism......lol. oh the rage....

On Monday, the New York Times admitted that "editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation" of the explosion that occurred at a Gaza hospital last week after the paper "relied too heavily on claims by Hamas." The terrorist organization that rules the Palestinian territory blamed an Israeli airstrike in a story that quickly spread.

The lengthy Times editor's note said the initial report "left readers with an incorrect impression" of the events that transpired and said it should have "taken more care" with the presentation of the information and identifying what could be verified.

Intentionally lying and embellishing is terrorism when done by a prominent news source... you should be enraged... but then again you are who you are... sad

12 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

On Monday, the New York Times admitted that "editors should have taken more care with the initial presentation" of the explosion that occurred at a Gaza hospital last week after the paper "relied too heavily on claims by Hamas." The terrorist organization that rules the Palestinian territory blamed an Israeli airstrike in a story that quickly spread.

The lengthy Times editor's note said the initial report "left readers with an incorrect impression" of the events that transpired and said it should have "taken more care" with the presentation of the information and identifying what could be verified.

Intentionally lying and embellishing is terrorism when done by a prominent news source... you should be enraged... but then again you are who you are... sad

You really need to look up the definition of terrorism

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You really need to look up the definition of terrorism

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims.

The NYT article fits the definition... it was written as it was to incite fear 

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims.

The NYT article fits the definition... it was written as it was to incite fear 

Just because you say its terrorism committed by the New York Times does not make it so, grab a coffee and relax chum

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Just because you say its terrorism committed by the New York Times does not make it so, grab a coffee and relax chum

So now that it's defined as you asked for it to be... you have withdrawn into the relax chum mode... so adult of you

7 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

So now that it's defined as you asked for it to be... you have withdrawn into the relax chum mode... so adult of you

What are you talking about, stop minimizing acts of terror, that's what happened on the 7th Oct, not a mistaken report in the NYT. Off topic nonsense "chum"

 

In the United States of America, terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38, of the U.S. Code as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".[10]

9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

What are you talking about, stop minimizing acts of terror, that's what happened on the 7th Oct, not a mistaken report in the NYT. Off topic nonsense "chum"

 

In the United States of America, terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38, of the U.S. Code as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".[10]

Well... unlike you I am not in the USA so I am not bound by their definition as the gospel truth... There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it.^[3][4] Terrorism is a charged term. It is often used with the connotation of something that is "morally wrong". Governments and non-state groups use the term to abuse or denounce opposing groups.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} Varied political organizations have been accused of using terrorism to achieve their objectives. These include left-wing and right-wing political organizations, nationalist groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.^[9] Legislation declaring terrorism a crime has been adopted in many states.^[10] State terrorism is that perpetrated by nation states, but is not considered such by the state conducting it, making legality a grey area.^[11] There is no consensus as to whether terrorism should be regarded as a war crime.^[10][12] Separating activism and terrorism can be difficult and has been described as a 'fine line'.^[13]