3 hours ago, Morch said:

Got to love comments like 'there are no Hamas supporters here'.

 

There are posters commenting regularly on these, posting Hamas talking points, agenda tenets, figures, arguments and so on. Maybe they are clueless, not informed enough to actually differentiate between Hamas, the PA, and the Palestinians - just picking up soundbites, headlines, links and so on which 'seem' to be 'it'. There are some on here which put forth positions which are clearly not in the interest of the Gazans, but more to do with some notions of 'the cause'.

 

IMO, the 'clueless' angle would have held for maybe 2-3 weeks post 7/10. Anyone parroting the same after that is set on being uninformed - it's not like the differences between agendas, positions, talking points and such weren't thoroughly discussed and expanded on by now.

 

It's a choice.

 

This can be interpreted in many ways - maybe some do support Hamas, or maybe they really dislike Israel, or maybe they just picked a side which seemed 'right' and stick with it, or maybe they just troll. I don't know, and I don't really care that much. It comes down to the same thing.

 

I find it repulsive that people who are nowhere near the ME, and maybe even never set foot there - people who have no real interest in this beyond point scoring on these 'discussions' push some Hamas-based hard line positions, writing cheques that Gazans will pay, as it were.

 

Anyone disagrees with you and they are branded 'clueless or trolls'. 

They are not allowed to have an opinion unless they are from the area, or been there. 

There are not Hamas supporters regularly posting Hamas agenda tenets or figures. 

You lack integrity as outed recently with you Sumud post. 

Anyone who is not pro your country is labelled a terrorist supporter, 

Someone protests too much.

On 1/2/2024 at 5:58 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

He's hardly going to agree that he's committing genocide, is he?

 

IMO the idea that Hamas, whatever it wants to do, is capable of killing all israelis, is a nonsense, and should not be given any credence at all by any rational person.

IMO it's just an excuse they trot out to justify blowing thousands of children to bits.

Exactly. 

17 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

 

Anyone disagrees with you and they are branded 'clueless or trolls'. 

They are not allowed to have an opinion unless they are from the area, or been there. 

There are not Hamas supporters regularly posting Hamas agenda tenets or figures. 

You lack integrity as outed recently with you Sumud post. 

Anyone who is not pro your country is labelled a terrorist supporter, 

.He and I disagree frequently, and I have not been labeled any of these things by him. 

14 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

 

Anyone disagrees with you and they are branded 'clueless or trolls'. 

They are not allowed to have an opinion unless they are from the area, or been there. 

There are not Hamas supporters regularly posting Hamas agenda tenets or figures. 

You lack integrity as outed recently with you Sumud post. 

Anyone who is not pro your country is labelled a terrorist supporter, 

Says the man that blocks anyone that dares to have a different opinion to himself. 😂😂😂

5 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Says the man that blocks anyone that dares to have a different opinion to himself. 😂😂😂

One actually wonders who's/what posts he has available to read or does he just make up responses to imaginary posts!

23 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

 

 

Anyone who is not pro your country is labelled a terrorist supporter, 

 

   You was replying to this 

 

"This can be interpreted in many ways - maybe some do support Hamas"

 

   You reply doesn't make any logical sense 

 

6 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

do you think the judges will be ignoring the evidence of Hamas deliberately using civilians as human shields

 

Nor will they ignore the deaths of Palestinians who aren't Hamas. Do you understand yet?

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

6 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

do you think the judges will be ignoring the evidence of Hamas deliberately using civilians as human shields

Nor will they ignore the deaths of Palestinians who aren't Hamas. Do you understand yet?

 

Yes. Then they will put 2 and 2 together to realize they are related. Just like cause and effect. 

 

As most everyone already knows. 

16 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

You reply doesn't make any logical sense 

Neither do most of his posts!

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Yes. Then they will put 2 and 2 together to realize they are related. Just like cause and effect. 

 

As most everyone already knows. 

 

So they will either not charge or will acquit war crimes against other Palestinians because .... Hamas? Is that what you believe?

4 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Yes. Then they will put 2 and 2 together to realize they are related. Just like cause and effect. 

 

As most everyone already knows. 

 

   Its also not a crime or illegal for citizens to get killed in wars .

It is a war crime for Hamas to use Human shields .

Its not a war crime for IDF to  try and shoot Hamas hiding behind those Human Shields .

IDF have done enough to show they didn't intentionally commit war crimes 

Hamas, bang to rights, no defence at all , guilty as .

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

So they will either not charge or will acquit war crimes against other Palestinians because .... Hamas? Is that what you believe?

I think they'll be found guilty of war crimes, but I think the court is a farce. 

 

What great cases have been won by the court? 

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So they will either not charge or will acquit war crimes against other Palestinians because .... Hamas? Is that what you believe?

 

I 'believe' your unintelligible answer/question proves you know Hamas use of human shields is why casualties are so high.  Always have. 

30 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Nor will they ignore the deaths of Palestinians who aren't Hamas. Do you understand yet?

  

 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think they'll be found guilty of war crimes, but I think the court is a farce. 

 

What great cases have been won by the court? 

 

   They will probably get a 500 Shekel fine and a Wai 

Just now, rabas said:

 

I 'believe' your unintelligible answer/question proves you know Hamas use of human shields is why casualties are so high.  Always have. 

 

I gather you didn't comprehend my question or are you suggesting that any Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF were being used as human shields?

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

  

 

 

All of those Palestinians who were killed? Or just some of them?

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

All of those Palestinians who were killed? Or just some of them?

I don't know, do you think the judge will be looking at that and making his own determination?

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

All of those Palestinians who were killed? Or just some of them?

I imagine some of them as shields, some as collateral damage from bombing, some because they were mistaken as combatants. 

 

Unlike Hamas who intentionally targeted civilians. 

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I gather you didn't comprehend my question or are you suggesting that any Palestinian civilians killed by the IDF were being used as human shields?

 

No, I believe you were putting words in my mouth to dodge my point, and are now doing it again.  

 

Do you understand that many Gaza casualties are because Hamas use of human shields? 

 

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I don't know, do you think the judge will be looking at that and making his own determination?

 

My point was that the case will be taken up on its merits.

Just now, rabas said:

 

No, I believe you were putting words in my mouth to dodge my point, and are now doing it again.  

 

Do you understand that many Gaza casualties are because Hamas use of human shields? 

 

 

If no, then do you accept that there may be a case to answer in respect of those Palestinians who were not Hamas and were not used as human shields when they were killed?

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

My point was that the case will be taken up on its merits.

Jolly good, that was always my point too. Currently many professionals think it is meritless and fact less but lets see what the judges decide, it will be a few years of waiting on that for a full decision based on other cases.

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

Jolly good, that was always my point too. Currently many professionals think it is meritless and fact less but lets see what the judges decide, it will be a few years of waiting on that for a full decision based on other cases.

 

The case may be but the elephant in the room is a looming injunctive order to cease hostilities. Soon after the hearing next week.

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

The case may be but the elephant in the room is a looming injunctive order to cease hostilities. Soon after the hearing next week.

Why should Israel recognize "...the looming injunctive order to cease hostilities." ?

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

The case may be but the elephant in the room is a looming injunctive order to cease hostilities. Soon after the hearing next week.

Yes I posted that a "provincial decision" may be made before the final one earlier in the topic.....lol

 

If it does Israel may also not accept decision, and raise “preliminary objections” to the Court’s jurisdiction and the inadmissibility of the application. 

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes I posted that a "provincial decision" may be made before the final one earlier in the topic.....lol

 

If it does Israel may also not accept decision, and raise “preliminary objections” to the Court’s jurisdiction and the inadmissibility of the application. 

 

They well might but that won't stop the injunction while the objection is heard.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

They well might but that won't stop the injunction while the objection is heard.

It might not stop them from issuing the injunction. How would they enforce it? 

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

They well might but that won't stop the injunction while the objection is heard.

That will probably make as much difference to Israel as it did to Russia when it appealed the provisional decision on the Ukraine case