Miraculous escape from Gaza hellfire: Thai worker’s astonishing tale of survival

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

You are only assuming your "facts" are true. I have also based much of what I posted in this exchange on "facts" that I have read online, and I have even quoted and posted links to them. And, yes, I have added my opinion to them also, but not to the point that I have distorted what I have read (and quoted) to make them "untrue."

I have suggested that many of your comments seem to be antisemitic because they contain a lot of one-sided criticism of Hamas and Palestinians. Of course, I'm sure you think that criticism is warranted and one-sided because that one side is based on what you believe to be "facts," so it is, of course, "true." 

I have suggested that many of your comments seem to be antisemitic because they contain a lot of one-sided criticism of Hamas and Palestinians. 

 

Do you even know what antisemitic means? None of his posts are antisemitic

[WDSmart]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Hamas stated goal is to kill all Jews.

And Zionists goals are to either expel all non-Jews from Palestine (what is now called "Israel'), or at least to contain them into small areas such as Gaza and the West Bank, and to control them. And, as we have seen over the last month and a half, they will do that using any means they can, including deadly force.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, I my full reference was that I support the elimination of BOTH Hamas and Zionists, NOT all Palestinians and Jews.

The vast majority of Israeli Jews are Zionists. You obviously don't know the definition of Zionist. I prefer at least HONEST Hamas rhetoric to people like you trying to disguise genocidal desires and intentions.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Jingthing

[WDSmart]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Total B.S.

Israel has been in the past and would be again open to a negotiated two state solution if the other party they are dealing with accepts the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish majority state and does not insist on massive Arab return to the borders of Israel. 

In fact, that's how Israel was established by the U.N. -- a Jewish side and an Arab side.

The Jews accepted. The Arab world attacked en masse.

Why would the Palestinians accept as two-state solution to allow some other group to inhabit part of their land? Anyway, I think the best approach would be a one-state solution where all parties, Jews and Palestinians, have equal rights as citizens. 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

And Zionists goals are to either expel all non-Jews from Palestine (what is now called "Israel'), or at least to contain them into small areas such as Gaza and the West Bank, and to control them. And, as we have seen over the last month and a half, they will do that using any means they can, including deadly force.

WRONG!

Do you even know anything about the conflict? 

Israel includes 20 percent Arab citizens. 

Try living as a Jew in the west bank or Gaza. 

[WDSmart]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The vast majority of Israeli Jews are Zionists. You obviously don't know the definition of Zionist. I prefer at least HONEST Hamas rhetoric to people like you trying to disguise genocidal desires and intentions.

Zionist: a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. - Oxford Dictionary. The "what is now Israel" should be preceded by "what used to be Palestine." 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Why would the Palestinians accept as two-state solution to allow some other group to inhabit part of their land? Anyway, I think the best approach would be a one-state solution where all parties, Jews and Palestinians, have equal rights as citizens. 

River to the Sea garbage.
Do you think Israelis or readers here are stupid?
One state means the end of Israel.

You clearly don't support the right of Israel to exist. 

I won't engage with you any longer. Where you're coming from clearly comes from a place of total ignorance, hatred of Israel, or both. Waste of time.

[WDSmart]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

WRONG!

Do you even know anything about the conflict? 

Israel includes 20 percent Arab citizens. 

Try living as a Jew in the west bank or Gaza. 

No, I'm not wrong; I just disagree with you.

Israel may now include 20% Arabs, but 50 years ago, Palestine also contained a few Jews, but mostly Arabs. The Zionists have driven Arabs out of Palestine or into the small, controlled areas of Gaza and the West Bank. And, Israel is continually carving out land for its Jewish citizens out of these areas.

[WDSmart]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

River to the Sea garbage.
Do you think Israelis or readers here are stupid?
One state means the end of Israel.

You clearly don't support the right of Israel to exist. 

I won't engage with you any longer. Where you're coming from clearly comes from a place of total ignorance, hatred of Israel, or both. Waste of time.

Thank you for terminating our discussion. 

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

You are only assuming your "facts" are true. I have also based much of what I posted in this exchange on "facts" that I have read online, and I have even quoted and posted links to them. And, yes, I have added my opinion to them also, but not to the point that I have distorted what I have read (and quoted) to make them "untrue."

I have suggested that many of your comments seem to be antisemitic because they contain a lot of one-sided criticism of Hamas and Palestinians. Of course, I'm sure you think that criticism is warranted and one-sided because that one side is based on what you believe to be "facts," so it is, of course, "true." 

 

It is a fact that Zionism is comprised of many views. It's is a fact that many of these views do not conform to the description you chose in your posts. This is reflected in Israeli politics, Israeli attitudes, and everyday life in Israel. You choose to focus on extreme views associated with Zionism (which I do not deny) and try your best to claim that they represent the whole. What you posted, quoted and so on is along similar lines - a cherry-picked version of things, tailored to fit your initial bogus argument. So yes, 'untrue' holds.

 

You can go on trolling with the 'antisemitic' nonsense. Guess that pointing out this concept is normally applied to Jews would result in more inane trolling about Palestinian being Semite, etc. Notably, you have not demonstrated a single comment of mine that even begins to be close to that, as expected.

 

Try harder.

[Morch]

49 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

And Zionists goals are to either expel all non-Jews from Palestine (what is now called "Israel'), or at least to contain them into small areas such as Gaza and the West Bank, and to control them. And, as we have seen over the last month and a half, they will do that using any means they can, including deadly force.

 

That is not true.

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

No, I'm not wrong; I just disagree with you.

Israel may now include 20% Arabs, but 50 years ago, Palestine also contained a few Jews, but mostly Arabs. The Zionists have driven Arabs out of Palestine or into the small, controlled areas of Gaza and the West Bank. And, Israel is continually carving out land for its Jewish citizens out of these areas.

 

As far as I recall there was a UN resolution involved? One side accepting, the other declaring war and losing? Or maybe you ignore the bits that aren't comfortable.

[WDSmart]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You choose to focus on extreme views associated with Zionism (which I do not deny) and try your best to claim that they represent the whole.

 

Guess that pointing out this concept is normally applied to Jews would result in more inane trolling about Palestinian being Semite, etc.

 

Try harder.

Thanks for at least agreeing that there are some Zionists that are extreme. I do associate them exclusively with the term "Zionist," although I accept that there are some more moderate zionists also. I believe that to be true of Hamas also, but I know you don't. Anyway, my original quote about "eliminating" them refers to the extreme factions in both camps.

I am impressed that you know that "semite" does not refer only to Jews but to Arabs and some North Africans also. Most people don't know that. So, although "antisemite" does mean "anti-Jew," it can also be used to refer to anything "anti-Arab" also.

I am not going to "Try harder." I'll end our discussion here, unless, of course, you make any other remarks to which I believe a reply is necessary. 

Ta-ta! I'm sure I'll see you around AseanNow on other topics.... 

[WDSmart]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As far as I recall there was a UN resolution involved? One side accepting, the other declaring war and losing? Or maybe you ignore the bits that aren't comfortable.

To which war are you referring? There have been many....

[300sd]

55 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Anyway, I think the best approach would be a one-state solution where all parties, Jews and Palestinians, have equal rights as citizens. 

Brilliant, might want to mention that solution to your Palestinian friends. They on the other hand wish to kill Jews but perhaps living with them would be ok ya think. They want a one state solution alright. Get a clue!

ps. You can reply but our discussion is over.

[WDSmart]

14 minutes ago, 300sd said:

You can reply but our discussion is over.

Sounds like you might be a good negotiator for either Hamas or the Zionists... 

Edited November 29, 2023 by WDSmart

[riclag]

8 hours ago, DaddyWarbucks said:

Lesson learned...

   Don't sign any contracts to work in or near warzones.

The families  of dead Thai’s should be given a  large sum of monies by the terrorist authorities of Hamas!

The Thai hostages who were kidnapped should be given a large stipend , as well!

 

[Morch]

51 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Thanks for at least agreeing that there are some Zionists that are extreme. I do associate them exclusively with the term "Zionist," although I accept that there are some more moderate zionists also. I believe that to be true of Hamas also, but I know you don't. Anyway, my original quote about "eliminating" them refers to the extreme factions in both camps.

I am impressed that you know that "semite" does not refer only to Jews but to Arabs and some North Africans also. Most people don't know that. So, although "antisemite" does mean "anti-Jew," it can also be used to refer to anything "anti-Arab" also.

I am not going to "Try harder." I'll end our discussion here, unless, of course, you make any other remarks to which I believe a reply is necessary. 

Ta-ta! I'm sure I'll see you around AseanNow on other topics.... 

 

How do you mean 'at least', other than trying to twist things some more - what I posted is pretty much what I initially claimed. As for Hamas - you keep claiming the same to be 'true' in reference to their positions - and yet made no actual attempt to demonstrate that in any meaningful way. Your initial quote was referring to an extreme faction of one side, and the whole of the other side - not what you posted above.

 

As expected going for a daft semantic argument, which doesn't hold water. There are almost no reference to Antisemitism relating to Arabs or Palestinians. Generally, it is accepted as pertaining to Jews. You may wish to inform yourself about the origins of the term, that may clear up some things for you.

[Morch]

55 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

To which war are you referring? There have been many....

 

The 1948 war, obviously - as you were well aware.

Any more trolling on offer?

[WDSmart]

13 hours ago, Morch said:

 

How do you mean 'at least', other than trying to twist things some more - what I posted is pretty much what I initially claimed. As for Hamas - you keep claiming the same to be 'true' in reference to their positions - and yet made no actual attempt to demonstrate that in any meaningful way. Your initial quote was referring to an extreme faction of one side, and the whole of the other side - not what you posted above.

 

As expected going for a daft semantic argument, which doesn't hold water. There are almost no reference to Antisemitism relating to Arabs or Palestinians. Generally, it is accepted as pertaining to Jews. You may wish to inform yourself about the origins of the term, that may clear up some things for you.

Morch...

My use of "at least" means just what it says: you finally did agree that the term "Zionists" includes radicals, but that's all you did. You did not agree with me that those supporting Hamas also include non-radicals. There are plenty of Palestinians who either want all the Jews completely out of their country, or want a two-state solution, or at least (there it is again!) are willing to live with Jews equally as part of a one-state solution but do not support radical actions, such as killings, to achieve that.

Yes, most people believe the term "antisemitism" refers ONLY to anti-Jewish sentiments. The term does mean anti-Jewish, but it ALSO means anti-Arab. 

I have informed myself on the definition of the term. I advise you to do so also. I assume you are a native English speaker, probably from the UK since you use single quote marks, so you should know the meaning of "anti." Then, all you have to do is look up the word "Semite," and you'll find out what "antisemitic" means.


 

[WDSmart]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The 1948 war, obviously - as you were well aware.

Any more trolling on offer?

My point is there have been continuing wars (military actions) for over 70 years, and that's just on our current calendar. There were many conflicts between Jews and Arabs before that. 

So, you're pointing to just one of them to prove some kind of point is not convincing to me.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, WDSmart said:

Morch...

My use of "at least" means just what it says: you finally did agree that the term "Zionists" includes radicals, but that's all you did. You did not agree with me that those supporting Hamas also include non-radicals. There are plenty of Palestinians who either want all the Jews completely out of their country, or want a two-state solution, or at least (there it is again!) are willing to live with Jews equally as part of a one-state solution but do not support radical actions, such as killings, to achieve that.

Yes, most people believe the term "antisemitism" refers ONLY to anti-Jewish sentiments. The term does mean anti-Jewish, but it ALSO means anti-Arab. 

I have informed myself on the definition of the term. I advise you to do so also. I assume you are a native English speaker, probably from the UK since you use single quote marks, so you should know the meaning of "anti." Then, all you have to do is look up the word "Semite," and you'll find out what "antisemitic" means.


 

 

There was no 'finally did agree', I did not contest that there are no such extreme elements. You're making things up. 

 

The same dishonesty from you on the other count - you do not demonstrate the existence of moderate Hamas supporters willing to accept a two state solution, a one state solution and so on. What you do is move the goal posts to include all Palestinians view (vs. previous Hamas supporters comment). So once again, I did not claim all Palestinians subscribe to Hamas's extreme views either. Just something you imply, but wasn't there.

 

Almost no one uses Antisemitism in the context of Arabs. Give it a rest. Been done to death on these sort of topics.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, WDSmart said:

My point is there have been continuing wars (military actions) for over 70 years, and that's just on our current calendar. There were many conflicts between Jews and Arabs before that. 

So, you're pointing to just one of them to prove some kind of point is not convincing to me.

 

No, that would be you deflecting again. The reference to the 1948 war was in connection with the 1947 UN resolution - which one side accepted and the other rejected. If you want to claim all wars are the same, or that the context does not matter - good luck with that.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Morch

[WDSmart]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There was no 'finally did agree', I did not contest that there are no such extreme elements. You're making things up. 

 

The same dishonesty from you on the other count - you do not demonstrate the existence of moderate Hamas supporters willing to accept a two state solution, a one state solution and so on. What you do is move the goal posts to include all Palestinians view (vs. previous Hamas supporters comment). So once again, I did not claim all Palestinians subscribe to Hamas's extreme views either. Just something you imply, but wasn't there.

 

Almost no one uses Antisemitism in the context of Arabs. Give it a rest. Been done to death on these sort of topics.

I don't know why you keep accusing me of being dishonest. I'm only stating my opinion. 

Yes, most people only interrupt "antisemitism" with being anti-Jewish and don't even know its more accurate meaning includes Arabs and some North African people. That's probably because we in the West have historically accepted Jews more than Arabs/Muslims. I, AT LEAST, know what "Semite" actually means.

I hope you are being truthful about being "done to death" on these sorts of topics. That would be very welcome for me. 

[WDSmart]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, that would be you deflecting again. The reference to the 1948 war was in connection with the 1947 UN resolution - which one side accepted and the other rejected. If you want to claim all wars are the same, or that the context does not matter - good luck with that.

The 1947 UN Resolution and it's history is too much to go into here. Suffice to say it was the result of an earlier action by the UK, who claimed ownership of Palestine (WTF??) and gave rights to the Jews to live there. This resolution was a further sanctioning of that. Neither of these were done with agreement of the actual people who lived there, the Palestinian Arab Muslims. And even then, this resolution divided Palestine up into regions with much less being given to the Jews than they now occupy.

 

Thank you for wishing me luck. I genuinely need it when corresponding with people like you. 

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I don't know why you keep accusing me of being dishonest. I'm only stating my opinion. 

Yes, most people only interrupt "antisemitism" with being anti-Jewish and don't even know its more accurate meaning includes Arabs and some North African people. That's probably because we in the West have historically accepted Jews more than Arabs/Muslims. I, AT LEAST, know what "Semite" actually means.

I hope you are being truthful about being "done to death" on these sorts of topics. That would be very welcome for me. 

 

You keep implying things I have not claimed. That's dishonest. Not too complicated.

 

There is no 'more accurate meaning'. Practically no one uses it other than for referencing Jews. The origins of the terms are specifically tied with Jew hatred.

 

Just lame trolling, again.

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

The 1947 UN Resolution and it's history is too much to go into here. Suffice to say it was the result of an earlier action by the UK, who claimed ownership of Palestine (WTF??) and gave rights to the Jews to live there. This resolution was a further sanctioning of that. Neither of these were done with agreement of the actual people who lived there, the Palestinian Arab Muslims. And even then, this resolution divided Palestine up into regions with much less being given to the Jews than they now occupy.

 

Thank you for wishing me luck. I genuinely need it when corresponding with people like you. 

 

More nonsense, inaccuracies and lies from you.

 

If you cannot work out how and why this was referenced, try reading the topic again.

 

The UK did not 'claim ownership' of Palestine. Try looking up 'Mandate' in reference to that, and figure out what it means. Jews were present in the land (granted, in small numbers) well before the British appeared on the scene. The Arabs, at the time, were not even much into defining themselves as 'Palestinians', by the way.

 

The resolution was voted on by the UN. You have issues with that, than take it up with the UN. Otherwise, what you basically seem opposed to is not Israeli policy, but the existence of Israel. That's up to you , but it does not offer much room for discussion, or consideration. The division of the land, as it appears on the map is misleading - the southern mass of land allotted as part of the upcoming Jewish State was mostly an arid desert, sparsely populated.

 

[WDSmart]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You keep implying things I have not claimed. That's dishonest. Not too complicated.

 

There is no 'more accurate meaning'. Practically no one uses it other than for referencing Jews. The origins of the terms are specifically tied with Jew hatred.

 

Just lame trolling, again.

If I "imply" things you have not claimed, I'm not saying you actually claimed that. I'm saying what you claim implies certain other assumptions. That's the nature of a discussion. If you deny my implications, that's fine, but why characterize them as "dishonest"?

There is a "more accurate meaning" (USA English double quotes instead of the British English single quotes) of "anti-semitism." It comes from knowing wheret the two parts of the word actually come from and mean. "Anti" is "against," (I assume you agree with that, AT LEAST), and "semitism" comes from "Semite," which means:

 

"...a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs." - Oxford Language Dictionary

What could be clearer and more accurate than that?

What you're suggesting would be like defining "racist' as a White person who hates Blacks, and not just ANY person of ANY race who hates people of a DIFFERENT race.

I'm sorry you think I'm lame. I assure you, I am not. I will continue "trolling," the SECOND definition, which is: 

"carefully and systematically search[ing] an area for something" - Oxford Language Dictionary
 

[WDSmart]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

More nonsense, inaccuracies and lies from you.

 

If you cannot work out how and why this was referenced, try reading the topic again.

 

The UK did not 'claim ownership' of Palestine. Try looking up 'Mandate' in reference to that, and figure out what it means. Jews were present in the land (granted, in small numbers) well before the British appeared on the scene. The Arabs, at the time, were not even much into defining themselves as 'Palestinians', by the way.

 

The resolution was voted on by the UN. You have issues with that, than take it up with the UN. Otherwise, what you basically seem opposed to is not Israeli policy, but the existence of Israel. That's up to you , but it does not offer much room for discussion, or consideration. The division of the land, as it appears on the map is misleading - the southern mass of land allotted as part of the upcoming Jewish State was mostly an arid desert, sparsely populated.

 

Check out the "Balfour Declaration" by the British on Wikipedia. It gives a good snapshot into some of the activities that have contributed to the mess we see today. Also, it gives some view into Zionists and Zionism.

The resolution was voted on by the UN. It passed, but my point is the then occupants of the land, the Palestinians, had no say in it. They were just told they had to divide their land up and give parts to the Jews. 

My bottom line is not antisemitic or anti-Jewish, it's just that this land, Palestine, now called "Israel," was once occupied primarily by Arab Muslims, but now they, for many reasons (wars, declarations, etc.) are being slowly eliminated from their home. They now are isolated into two, separated, small territories, and soon, I suspect, will be further contained, if not completely eliminated. And it is that possiblity/probablity that I am speaking out against. 
 

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

If I "imply" things you have not claimed, I'm not saying you actually claimed that. I'm saying what you claim implies certain other assumptions. That's the nature of a discussion. If you deny my implications, that's fine, but why characterize them as "dishonest"?

There is a "more accurate meaning" (USA English double quotes instead of the British English single quotes) of "anti-semitism." It comes from knowing wheret the two parts of the word actually come from and mean. "Anti" is "against," (I assume you agree with that, AT LEAST), and "semitism" comes from "Semite," which means:

 

"...a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs." - Oxford Language Dictionary

What could be clearer and more accurate than that?

What you're suggesting would be like defining "racist' as a White person who hates Blacks, and not just ANY person of ANY race who hates people of a DIFFERENT race.

I'm sorry you think I'm lame. I assure you, I am not. I will continue "trolling," the SECOND definition, which is: 

"carefully and systematically search[ing] an area for something" - Oxford Language Dictionary
 

 

My comments were clear, and not very complex. You're trying to present my views in a misleading manner, over and over again. I think it was dishonest to begin with, I know it was when you kept at it.

 

The rest of your trolling nonsense is dully noted.