Morch Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 7 minutes ago, ozimoron said: And for those who believe the UN funded the tunnels as a diversion from Netanyahu's complicity, the amount of funds funneled by Qatar to Hamas with the complicity of Netanyahu amounted to $1.8 billion and was the largest source of Hamas funds by far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_support_for_Hamas @ozimoron It does not negate the possibility of UN and international aid funds being funneled for Hamas purposes. It's just you going for a lame obfuscation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Monday Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 17 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said: It is considered to be Anti semetic to compare Jews to Nazis and it is also offensive to Jews as well That might be so, to people suffering fundamental misunderstandings.I responsible am not for their false grievance and illigimate feelings. I made a comment about heroic Jewish resistance in the ghetto. I did not compare Jews to Nazis. I compared Israel’s actions to Nazis. To say that is comparing “Jews to Nazis” is just as fallacious as to say that “all Germans were Nazis” Israel is not “Jews”. It is a state created by UN agreement that has rights and responsibilities under international law. One of the problems we have is their propagandists frequently claims to be the representative of all Jews and the state acts in their benefit and even on their behalf. This is a completely false and illegitimate claim to be roundly rejected. Further lately if you listen to the talking heads on CNN etc and down you will hear that any criticism of Israels actions is antisemitism. Even the BDS movement is antisemitism. Well these talking heads have a very warped and definition of it the word. I am sure you are aware many fundamentalist Jews do not agree with the existence/concept of a Jewish state under religious grounds at all. Are they antisemites? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 4 minutes ago, Captain Monday said: I made a comment about heroic Jewish resistance in the ghetto. I did not compare Jews to Nazis. I compared Israel’s actions to Nazis. To say that is comparing “Jews to Nazis” is just as fallacious as to say that “all Germans were Nazis” ? The Children and Grand children of that heroic Jewish resistance in the ghettos in the 1930's are now also resisting the present day Nazis in 2024 . Hamas want to continue what the Nazis started .A final solution to the Jewish problem is also the Hamas ideology The 1930's Jews didn't have the means to defend themselves , today Jews have the means to defend themselves . Never again will Jews allow themselves to be slaughtered en masse 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Monday Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 41 minutes ago, Morch said: What 'crimes against humanity'? People on here are tossing labels and terms about like these are decided, accepted things. They are not. What would you have Israel do? Stop at the border? Beg Hamas to return the hostages? Accept all Hamas demands? You offer meaningless words instead of addressing actual circumstances. What is a CAG? Use your common sense I know it is there under the slick rhetoric and programmed talking points. As you likely know a determination of whether crimes against humanity occurred would be made by the judgements of the ICC or other international tribunal. Now, if such a determination would ever be made Israel with full diplomatic cover from Uncle Sam would never allow its officials or Officers be subject to its jurisdiction, judgement or punishment so it hardly matters. As for what Israel "should have" do the framework for such has existed for decades has been known and accepted by "nearly the entire international community" . That being except Israel, US, Nauru, the Republic of Palau and the other client states. It is a little late for that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Morch Posted January 26 Popular Post Share Posted January 26 23 minutes ago, Captain Monday said: What is a CAG? Use your common sense I know it is there under the slick rhetoric and programmed talking points. As you likely know a determination of whether crimes against humanity occurred would be made by the judgements of the ICC or other international tribunal. Now, if such a determination would ever be made Israel with full diplomatic cover from Uncle Sam would never allow its officials or Officers be subject to its jurisdiction, judgement or punishment so it hardly matters. As for what Israel "should have" do the framework for such has existed for decades has been known and accepted by "nearly the entire international community" . That being except Israel, US, Nauru, the Republic of Palau and the other client states. It is a little late for that now. Comparing Israel with the Nazis is widely considered an expression of antisemitism. That you feel you're justified in doing so bears no relevance on the fact that you are trading in antisemitic tropes. I'm not even getting into the hyperbole nature of the comparison, which is ludicrous. As often pointed out - such comments are either born of ignorance or malice. Up to you. Your nonsense about the 'framework' tries to make it as if things are entirely up to Israel, and that the Palestinians did not and do not play a part in it at all. This is beyond nonsense. As for 'a little late for that now' - so what was your point, then? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDSmart Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) BINGO! (Provisional and long-overdue Bingo) The International Court of Justice’s Rebuke of Israel Was Swift and Scathing | The New Republic Edited January 27 by WDSmart Added some opinions 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDSmart Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 15 hours ago, Morch said: @ozimoron It does not negate the possibility of UN and international aid funds being funneled for Hamas purposes. It's just you going for a lame obfuscation. And, of course, my home country, the USA, is still funding the Zionist attacks on Gaza and the West Bank. This funding, however, is starting to become a political issue for Presiden Biden in the upcoming presidential election in November. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 minutes ago, WDSmart said: And, of course, my home country, the USA, is still funding the Zionist attacks on Gaza and the West Bank. This funding, however, is starting to become a political issue for Presiden Biden in the upcoming presidential election in November. Your home country does not share your warped views. Nor does it share your obsession with misguided use of terms. Unless mistaken there was an almost unanimous vote regarding funding and support a short while ago? But don't let that get in the way of your delusional ramblings. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 2 hours ago, WDSmart said: BINGO! (Provisional and long-overdue Bingo) The International Court of Justice’s Rebuke of Israel Was Swift and Scathing | The New Republic You should check the latest, Hamas and SA are not celebrating and your in the wrong topic with that too https://aseannow.com/topic/1318095-provisional-decision-today-icj-weighs-emergency-measures-amid-allegations-of-genocide-in-gaza 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: You should check the latest, Hamas and SA are not celebrating and your in the wrong topic with that too https://aseannow.com/topic/1318095-provisional-decision-today-icj-weighs-emergency-measures-amid-allegations-of-genocide-in-gaza A link to another topic is not proof of anything. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, ozimoron said: A link to another topic is not proof of anything. @ozimoron It's 'proof' that there's another topic specifically dealing with this. Got to love how you need to stupidly argue about everything. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDSmart Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 4 minutes ago, Morch said: Your home country does not share your warped views. Nor does it share your obsession with misguided use of terms. Unless mistaken there was an almost unanimous vote regarding funding and support a short while ago? But don't let that get in the way of your delusional ramblings. Yes, I'd agree that the majority in my home country (USA) does not share my views on this crisis, but that's, IMO, is because they have not been presented with all the facts and the viewpoints from both sides. That, however, is changing. CNN, my primary source of news, is now presenting more information about the Palestinian and Arab perspectives. And, of course, yesterday's ruling (provisional) by the International Court of Justice will also cause more people to re-examine their positions on this crisis. I don't think the majority will every come around to my viewpoint, but I do believe the percentage will grow and grow as they learn more facts about this. I do not believe my opinions are delusiions. They are based on the "facts" I know from what I have viewed and read over the past 20 years, and that are being reinforced every day of this tragedy. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, ozimoron said: A link to another topic is not proof of anything. Deflection. Providing a link to the appropriate topic for his post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 Just now, WDSmart said: Yes, I'd agree that the majority in my home country (USA) does not share my views on this crisis, but that's, IMO, is because they have not been presented with all the facts and the viewpoints from both sides. That, however, is changing. CNN, my primary source of news, is now presenting more information about the Palestinian and Arab perspectives. And, of course, yesterday's ruling (provisional) by the International Court of Justice will also cause more people to re-examine their positions on this crisis. I don't think the majority will every come around to my viewpoint, but I do believe the percentage will grow and grow as they learn more facts about this. I do not believe my opinions are delusiions. They are based on the "facts" I know from what I have viewed and read over the past 20 years, and that are being reinforced every day of this tragedy. Considering your own warped views, I doubt that you're one to recommend anything on 'viewpoints', or complain about other's lack of knowledge. Somehow, you expect others to change their views, but at the same time take pride in your own views being unchanged. And that's despite them odd 'opinions' of yours being addressed, taken apart, and demonstrated as nonsense. Fancy that. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDSmart Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: You should check the latest, Hamas and SA are not celebrating and your in the wrong topic with that too https://aseannow.com/topic/1318095-provisional-decision-today-icj-weighs-emergency-measures-amid-allegations-of-genocide-in-gaza I do not care if Hamas and SA (who are they?) are not celebrating with me. How could the International Court of Justice's ruling not be pertinent to the topic of this thread? Isn't it about the Zionist's response to Hamas' Oct attack, just as the court's ruling is? The International Court of Justice’s Rebuke of Israel Was Swift and Scathing | The New Republic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, WDSmart said: I do not care if Hamas and SA (who are they?) are not celebrating with me. How could the International Court of Justice's ruling not be pertinent to the topic of this thread? Isn't it about the Zionist's response to Hamas' Oct attack, just as the court's ruling is? The International Court of Justice’s Rebuke of Israel Was Swift and Scathing | The New Republic SA is South Africa. I'm sure you'll come up with your new idiosyncratic term at some point. There is a specific topic dealing with the ICJ's provisional ruling, there is no need to discuss it on any related topic separately. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, WDSmart said: I do not care if Hamas and SA (who are they?) are not celebrating with me. How could the International Court of Justice's ruling not be pertinent to the topic of this thread? Isn't it about the Zionist's response to Hamas' Oct attack, just as the court's ruling is? The International Court of Justice’s Rebuke of Israel Was Swift and Scathing | The New Republic You know exactly who they are. Oh and no ceasefire and order for immediate release of all hostages. If that's the party you are attending join the relevant topic...... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDSmart Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 5 minutes ago, Morch said: Considering your own warped views, I doubt that you're one to recommend anything on 'viewpoints', or complain about other's lack of knowledge. Somehow, you expect others to change their views, but at the same time take pride in your own views being unchanged. And that's despite them odd 'opinions' of yours being addressed, taken apart, and demonstrated as nonsense. Fancy that. I hope those who disagree with me will at least reconsider their views as they get more information. Some of that information is new, but some of it is old and has either been ignored by them or never presented to them. The International Court of Justice did not think South Africa's charges were nonsense, and those charges are compatible with the viewpoint I've had for many years. The International Court of Justice’s Rebuke of Israel Was Swift and Scathing | The New Republic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 36 minutes ago, WDSmart said: I hope those who disagree with me will at least reconsider their views as they get more information. Some of that information is new, but some of it is old and has either been ignored by them or never presented to them. The International Court of Justice did not think South Africa's charges were nonsense, and those charges are compatible with the viewpoint I've had for many years. The International Court of Justice’s Rebuke of Israel Was Swift and Scathing | The New Republic So you do not reconsider anything, refuse to absorb and assimilate 'new' information, but expect others to do so. Gotcha. Already pointed out there's a specific topic dealing with the provisional ruling, and a link was provided above. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, WDSmart said: I hope those who disagree with me will at least reconsider their views as they get more information. Some of that information is new, but some of it is old and has either been ignored by them or never presented to them. The International Court of Justice did not think South Africa's charges were nonsense, and those charges are compatible with the viewpoint I've had for many years. The International Court of Justice’s Rebuke of Israel Was Swift and Scathing | The New Republic Very childish off topic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDSmart Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 4 minutes ago, Morch said: SA is South Africa. I'm sure you'll come up with your new idiosyncratic term at some point. There is a specific topic dealing with the ICJ's provisional ruling, there is no need to discuss it on any related topic separately. I thought you might mean SA Saudi Arabia. I see now why you included SA in your previous post. I haven't seen the topic on the ICJ's provisional ruling. I'll check that out. Thanks for alerting me. However, I do think the ruling itself is an appropriate item to mention in this topic. I've not tried to discuss it in detail. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDSmart Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 minutes ago, Morch said: So you do not reconsider anything, refuse to absorb and assimilate 'new' information, but expect others to do so. Gotcha. Already pointed out there's a specific topic dealing with the provisional ruling, and a link was provided above. Kindly stop trolling, troll. I responded to your other post. I'm not a troll. I'm a forum participant engaging in disucssions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDSmart Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: You know exactly who they are. Oh and no ceasefire and order for immediate release of all hostages. If that's the party you are attending join the relevant topic...... I did not know of the other topic, and I did not intend to discuss the details of the ruling here. But I don think a mention of the ruling itself is very relevant to this topic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 2 minutes ago, WDSmart said: I thought you might mean SA Saudi Arabia. I see now why you included SA in your previous post. I haven't seen the topic on the ICJ's provisional ruling. I'll check that out. Thanks for alerting me. However, I do think the ruling itself is an appropriate item to mention in this topic. I've not tried to discuss it in detail. I thought you might actually pay attention for once. What does SA got to do with this? Also, it wasn't me who posted about SA to begin with. There was a link to the topic provided some posts above, which you have already seen and ignored. Try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 33 minutes ago, WDSmart said: I responded to your other post. I'm not a troll. I'm a forum participant engaging in disucssions. You've been provided with a link to the discussion mentioned, you keep on about it regardless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, WDSmart said: I disagree. This topic is "Hamas: Oct 7 was 'necessary, normal response' to 'Israeli conspiracies'" Not ICJ, if you disagree with that you need help 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: This topic is "Hamas: Oct 7 was 'necessary, normal response' to 'Israeli conspiracies'" Not ICJ, if you disagree with that you need help The ICJ ruling was a repudiation of the claim made in the topic title. Very much on topic. The ICJ affirmed Israel's right to continue it's attacks on Hamas. Edited January 27 by ozimoron 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morch Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 4 minutes ago, ozimoron said: The ICJ ruling was a repudiation of the claim made in the topic title. Very much on topic. The ICJ affirmed Israel's right to continue it's attacks on Hamas. @ozimoron More pointless argumentative nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezzra Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 10 minutes ago, ozimoron said: The ICJ ruling was a repudiation of the claim made in the topic title. Very much on topic. The ICJ affirmed Israel's right to continue it's attacks on Hamas. Just as well, because there are many who still denies that the 7th of October attack ever happened, same as those who still denying the Holocaust and other atrocities perpetrated on the Jewish people over the past centuries... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 19 minutes ago, ozimoron said: The ICJ ruling was a repudiation of the claim made in the topic title. Very much on topic. The ICJ affirmed Israel's right to continue it's attacks on Hamas. Nonsense 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.jpg.bc523c85a8d558dbc282dca7a2e602c9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now