Thousands march for Gaza in London, clashes in Paris over Israeli onslaught

[7by7]

 

What do you mean 'more?'

Perhaps he was referring to these.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGeP6yVP-Ro

 

 

That happened BEFORE the incident at the housing estate; so is not 'more' but 'previous.'

 

Jeez, don't you guys read the articles you link to before posting them?

[Mossfinn]

Remember the Alamo has turned into White Cats with Blue Eyes

[arjunadawn]

 In a world where presumably the ideal goal in the long-run is to reduce anti-Semitism and intolerance towards Jews, I can't possibly see how removing the right to vent one's anger and frustration on the street over the killing of innocent women and children can possibly help achieve this scenario? Surely it will be counter-productive?

 

"[You] can't possibly see" suggests that further information to enlarge your context would not help your understanding the events in Paris. Paris has a law that bars any religious displays, protests, etc. This applies to all religions and has for sometime. Every Friday, Muslims lock down entire areas of Paris into No-Go areas while they pray. Christians, Jews, secular citizens, all, are barred from passage and function. This backdrop, and the muslim riots give context to the concerns of authorities regarding the mechanations of these protests. As France, for the most part, has a tolerable environment for various religions it must be concluded that authorities would not have acted in this manner had they the choice, or the wise counsel otherwise.

 

The absurdity of suggesting Muslims and others protesting, or not, has the great weight and history of liberty and freedom of speech to support their actions belies the fact that these freedoms exist for no one throughout the muslim world, least of all non muslims. Masking your disdain for Jews as dispassion has hardly worked. I know these common refrains; we have all heard them by omission- when Jewish innocents die- Jews died. When Muslim innocents die- innocents died! Its palpable.

 

Listening to terrorist apologists take this position to the next level they then bemoan the inequality of the deaths on each side (See UN Spokesperson on Iron Dome, etc., ad nauseum). I reasonably infer were losses equal on both sides the argument would then be that in relation to citizen population Israel is losing less lives. Its totally sick watching the ethical relativists such as yourself try to cloak in reason that which is deplorable universally- Hamas kills its own. Hamas kills others. Hamas kills all. Manifesting in polity the mandate of their sacred books their reason for existence is declared without ambiguity in the Hamas Charter= to kill every single Jew alive. Hamas murders its own who protest their using schools militarily, hospitals, and public spaces for the conduct of war, and apologists such as yourself, who have only assigned your lately declared opinion to an issue you know little about, weep for the "innocents." Rarely in warfare has one side done so much to mitigate injury for so many. Yet, Hamas refuses to let their own people seek shelter, flee, or hide in order to amass numbers for international consumption. People who buy this are pawns and don't know it or care. That is a slave!

Edited August 10, 2014 by arjunadawn

[Mossfinn]

 

 

What do you mean 'more?'

Perhaps he was referring to these.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGeP6yVP-Ro

 

 

That happened BEFORE the incident at the housing estate; so is not 'more' but 'previous.'

 

Jeez, don't you guys read the articles you link to before posting them?

 

 

Read, yes they read, but like the black haired Dwarves of Narnia, they only see what they want to see.

 

Still waiting on answers to my question guys

 

[Ulysses G.]

 

 

What do you mean 'more?'

Perhaps he was referring to these.
 

That happened BEFORE the incident at the housing estate; so is not 'more' but 'previous.'

 

That would make the incident at the housing estate MORE - which  he referred to as "more " - but do you really think that have any sort of valid point if it were the opposite? You are clutching at straws.  

Edited August 10, 2014 by Scott

[Mossfinn]

 

 In a world where presumably the ideal goal in the long-run is to reduce anti-Semitism and intolerance towards Jews, I can't possibly see how removing the right to vent one's anger and frustration on the street over the killing of innocent women and children can possibly help achieve this scenario? Surely it will be counter-productive?

 

"[You] can't possibly see" suggests that further information to enlarge your context would not help your understanding the events in Paris. Paris has a law that bars any religious displays, protests, etc. This applies to all religions and has for sometime. Every Friday, Muslims lock down entire areas of Paris into No-Go areas while they pray. Christians, Jews, secular citizens, all, are barred from passage and function. This backdrop, and the muslim riots give context to the concerns of authorities regarding the mechanations of these protests. As France, for the most part, has a tolerable environment for various religions it must be concluded that authorities would not have acted in this manner had they the choice, or the wise counsel otherwise.

 

The absurdity of suggesting Muslims and others protesting, or not, has the great weight and history of liberty and freedom of speech to support their actions belies the fact that these freedoms exist for no one throughout the muslim world, least of all non muslims. Masking your disdain for Jews as dispassion has hardly worked. I know these common refrains; we have all heard them by omission- when Jewish innocents die- Jews died. When Muslim innocents die- innocents died! Its palpable.

 

Listening to terrorist apologists take this position to the next level they then bemoan the inequality of the deaths on each side (See UN Spokesperson on Iron Dome, etc., ad nauseum). I reasonably infer were losses equal on both sides the argument would then be that in relation to citizen population Israel is losing less lives. Its totally sick watching the ethical relativists such as yourself try to cloak in reason that which is deplorable universally- Hamas kills its own. Hamas kills others. Hamas kills all. Manifesting in polity the mandate of their sacred books their reason for existence is declared without ambiguity in the Hamas Charter= to kill every single Jew alive. Hamas murders its own who protest their using schools militarily, hospitals, and public spaces for the conduct of war, and apologists such as yourself, who have only assigned your lately declared opinion to an issue you know little about, weep for the "innocents." Rarely in warfare has one side done so much to mitigate injury for so many. Yet, Hamas refuses to let their own people seek shelter, flee, or hide in order to amass numbers for international consumption. People who buy this are pawns and don't know it or care. That is a slave!

 

 

Arjunadawn

Do you think the Israeli deaths previous to the incursion, justify the amount of Israeli deaths afterward? No one else will answer, perhaps you would care to.
 

[7by7]

Paris has a law that bars any religious displays, protests, etc. This applies to all religions and has for sometime.

No; France has such a law, not just Paris.
 

Every Friday, Muslims lock down entire areas of Paris into No-Go areas while they pray. Christians, Jews, secular citizens, all, are barred from passage and function.

Really?

The French authorities take a woman to court in a case which goes all the way to the ECtHR for wearing a burqa in public, but allow Muslims to pray in the street and so 'lock down' vast areas of Paris?

I find that hard to believe.

[simple1]

 

 

 

Please point out on this forum who 'hates Jews"! That is a serious accusation so either put up or shut up. I have not seen one person in support of Hamas, and not seen one person who 'hates Jews'

There have been a number of posts that have expressed both views. I and other have pointed them out before they were reported and deleted. Some of those members have vanished from the argument since then.
As far as current posters go, I have my suspicions and plenty of circumstantial evidence, but it would be against the rules to post it.

 

 

 

" I have my suspicions and plenty of circumstantial evidence, " If you have evidence then post it, I imagine it would not then be against forum rules if it is true and valid.

 

 

 

How's this? You were part of this conversation and did not even comment on it. 

 

http://grabilla.com/0480a-dbccc441-97bb-48b9-ac24-b72dd6ef2312.png

 

 

In reverse I don't see any comments rejecting some posters calls for nuclear attacks on Muslim countries and other calls for genocide against Muslims in other topics, in fact some pro Israel members in this very topic use 'likes' for approval
 

[Ulysses G.]

Do you think the Israeli deaths previous to the incursion, justify the amount of Israeli deaths afterward? No one else will answer, perhaps you would care to.

Your questions and your links have been dealt with ad nauseam in the past few weeks. That is why everyone is just ignoring you. Go back and read all the threads, if you want to have some clue of what you are talking about.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Mossfinn]

 

Do you think the Israeli deaths previous to the incursion, justify the amount of Israeli deaths afterward? No one else will answer, perhaps you would care to.

Your questions and your links have been dealt with ad nauseam in the past few weeks. That is why everyone is just ignoring you. Go back read all the threads, if you want to have some clue of what you are talking about.

 

 

Go on humour me, if it has been answered, 'ad nauseum', previously you won't mind one more time will you? You seem to have plenty of time on your hands. Or do you all fear the response, go on one more time, I promise to be gentle with you.
 

[dr_lucas]

 

 

 

 

There have been a number of posts that have expressed both views. I and other have pointed them out before they were reported and deleted. Some of those members have vanished from the argument since then.
As far as current posters go, I have my suspicions and plenty of circumstantial evidence, but it would be against the rules to post it.

 

 

 

" I have my suspicions and plenty of circumstantial evidence, " If you have evidence then post it, I imagine it would not then be against forum rules if it is true and valid.

 

 

 

How's this? You were part of this conversation and did not even comment on it. 

 

http://grabilla.com/0480a-dbccc441-97bb-48b9-ac24-b72dd6ef2312.png

 

 

In reverse I don't see any comments rejecting some posters calls for nuclear attacks on Muslim countries and other calls for genocide against Muslims in other topics, in fact some pro Israel members in this very topic use 'likes' for approval
 

 

 

The main point was not about whether he commented on it or not, it was about the fact that he requested evidence for such Antisemitic posts and UG provided a proof of that very thing, including saying that he was part of that specific conversation, so can't say he didn't see.

You, however, offered no such proof.

[arjunadawn]

 

 

 In a world where presumably the ideal goal in the long-run is to reduce anti-Semitism and intolerance towards Jews, I can't possibly see how removing the right to vent one's anger and frustration on the street over the killing of innocent women and children can possibly help achieve this scenario? Surely it will be counter-productive?

 

"[You] can't possibly see" suggests that further information to enlarge your context would not help your understanding the events in Paris. Paris has a law that bars any religious displays, protests, etc. This applies to all religions and has for sometime. Every Friday, Muslims lock down entire areas of Paris into No-Go areas while they pray. Christians, Jews, secular citizens, all, are barred from passage and function. This backdrop, and the muslim riots give context to the concerns of authorities regarding the mechanations of these protests. As France, for the most part, has a tolerable environment for various religions it must be concluded that authorities would not have acted in this manner had they the choice, or the wise counsel otherwise.

 

The absurdity of suggesting Muslims and others protesting, or not, has the great weight and history of liberty and freedom of speech to support their actions belies the fact that these freedoms exist for no one throughout the muslim world, least of all non muslims. Masking your disdain for Jews as dispassion has hardly worked. I know these common refrains; we have all heard them by omission- when Jewish innocents die- Jews died. When Muslim innocents die- innocents died! Its palpable.

 

Listening to terrorist apologists take this position to the next level they then bemoan the inequality of the deaths on each side (See UN Spokesperson on Iron Dome, etc., ad nauseum). I reasonably infer were losses equal on both sides the argument would then be that in relation to citizen population Israel is losing less lives. Its totally sick watching the ethical relativists such as yourself try to cloak in reason that which is deplorable universally- Hamas kills its own. Hamas kills others. Hamas kills all. Manifesting in polity the mandate of their sacred books their reason for existence is declared without ambiguity in the Hamas Charter= to kill every single Jew alive. Hamas murders its own who protest their using schools militarily, hospitals, and public spaces for the conduct of war, and apologists such as yourself, who have only assigned your lately declared opinion to an issue you know little about, weep for the "innocents." Rarely in warfare has one side done so much to mitigate injury for so many. Yet, Hamas refuses to let their own people seek shelter, flee, or hide in order to amass numbers for international consumption. People who buy this are pawns and don't know it or care. That is a slave!

 

 

Arjunadawn

Do you think the Israeli deaths previous to the incursion, justify the amount of Israeli deaths afterward? No one else will answer, perhaps you would care to.
 

 

 

NO! Without question, the immediate Israeli deaths leading up to this debacle make the continued action indefensible- on that pretext alone. If this is the nature of your question, the answer is no. Its a peculiar thing for me as the only people I know throughout that slice of earth are all Muslims, the ones that are still alive anyway. I don't have any Israeli friends or contacts, yet I think it is pretty clear I tend to support Israel in my posts. Why? I think it is because I deeply appreciate the nature of their predicament, and the massive forces arrayed against them- politically, militarily, socially, intellectually, religiously, culturally, geographically, regarding industry and natural resources.. you get my point.

 

Israel cannot have the luxury of viewing unfolding events in antecedent- or causal time. Israel has made grave mistakes by not employing the breadth of their intelligence/military/political industry in their calculations. Israel has no choice. No other country that I can think of existed so perilously close to their own demise every single moment. As I have posted elsewhere, I have no clue how to resolve the issue in the Middle east, but I do declare I have very objective thoughts about it all.
 

NOTE: I just re read your post; I think I got it right: You ask if the previous Israeli deaths justify the later Palestinian deaths? I presumed this was correct.

Edited August 10, 2014 by arjunadawn

[7by7]

 

 

 

What do you mean 'more?'

Perhaps he was referring to these.
 

(video of incident in Blackwall tunnel removed to save space.)

 
That happened BEFORE the incident at the housing estate; so is not 'more' but 'previous.'

 

That would make the incident at the housing estate MORE - which  he referred to as "more " - but do you really think that have any sort of valid point if it were the opposite? You are clutching at straws.  

 

 

Well, you're the straw clutching expert here, so I'll take that as a complement!

 

But, when several posts have discussed the raising and then removal of a black flag at the Will Crooks estate and someone then comes up with a post claiming 'more' which links back to the same and previous incidents it is obvious to all that the person has blundered.

 

No matter how many times you try and excuse his blunder.

[Ulysses G.]

How's this? You were part of this conversation and did not even comment on it. 
 
http://grabilla.com/0480a-dbccc441-97bb-48b9-ac24-b72dd6ef2312.png

 
In reverse I don't see any comments rejecting some posters calls for nuclear attacks on Muslim countries and other calls for genocide against Muslims in other topics, in fact some pro Israel members in this very topic use 'likes' for approval

A valid point, but none of us are denying that it has ever happened. Several of the anti-Israel posters keep suggesting that mentioning the anti-Semitic posts, that have been deleted, is some sort of conspiracy theory.   Edited August 10, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[dr_lucas]

 

 

It is a war. A war on terror in a urban area, not in the desert. Sadly, innocents die in wars and the images are always far too graphic, even when there is no genocide, no slaughter, no massacre and no ethnic cleansing. In all these legal terms, there must be intent to kill. Do you suggest the IDF intends to kill and deliberately targets civilians?

 

This issue has been raised on numerous ocassions. IDF are fully aware that by attacking missile sites, arms storage etc etc civilians will die (intent). That's a tactical war fighting decision, it is what it is, why try and spin by using the highlighted words; just sophistry.

 

 

Well, I offered hard evidence and clear facts from reliable articles and videos proving exactly the opposite of your opinion, so who is doing the spinning now?

Would you like me to repost my posts as a reminder?

Edited August 10, 2014 by dr_lucas

[Ulysses G.]

Do you think the Israeli deaths previous to the incursion, justify the amount of Israeli deaths afterward? No one else will answer, perhaps you would care to.

Your questions and your links have been dealt with ad nauseam in the past few weeks. That is why everyone is just ignoring you. Go back read all the threads, if you want to have some clue of what you are talking about.

 
Go on humour me, if it has been answered, 'ad nauseum', previously you won't mind one more time will you?

Yes I would. Go back and read the previous responses or quit whining about being ignored.

[GentlemanJim]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

 

 

 I have a life thank you.

 

 

And many people of all persuasions now don't.

 

And all I ask is for answers to my questions, maybe I ask too much?
 

 

 

I was not talking to you and you have clipped my post and made it completely out of context. That is against forum rules!, At NO TIME have you asked ME any questions. Take your gripe to the people that you asked questions to and leave me out of it. Clear!

Edited August 10, 2014 by GentlemanJim

[Ulysses G.]

It does seem strange that posts deemed anti Semitic are removed, yet the majority of Islamaphobic, ones, even if reported, remain!
 
(That may cause me to be off on a holiday; but it had to be said.)

My guess would be, from reading your posts for years, is that what you consider "Islamaphobic", most other people don't.

[simple1]

 

 

 

 

" I have my suspicions and plenty of circumstantial evidence, " If you have evidence then post it, I imagine it would not then be against forum rules if it is true and valid.

 

 

 

How's this? You were part of this conversation and did not even comment on it. 

 

http://grabilla.com/0480a-dbccc441-97bb-48b9-ac24-b72dd6ef2312.png

 

 

In reverse I don't see any comments rejecting some posters calls for nuclear attacks on Muslim countries and other calls for genocide against Muslims in other topics, in fact some pro Israel members in this very topic use 'likes' for approval
 

 

 

The main point was not about whether he commented on it or not, it was about the fact that he requested evidence for such Antisemitic posts and UG provided a proof of that very thing, including saying that he was part of that specific conversation, so can't say he didn't see. You, however, offered no such proof.

 

 

Post removed to enable response.

 

Sorry but I do not keep a record and I believe it is against forum rules to comment on specific TV members posting history. Explicit posts are deleted, at least UG is aware, I am 100% sure others are as well.

Edited August 10, 2014 by simple1

[Mossfinn]

 

 

 

 In a world where presumably the ideal goal in the long-run is to reduce anti-Semitism and intolerance towards Jews, I can't possibly see how removing the right to vent one's anger and frustration on the street over the killing of innocent women and children can possibly help achieve this scenario? Surely it will be counter-productive?

 

"[You] can't possibly see" suggests that further information to enlarge your context would not help your understanding the events in Paris. Paris has a law that bars any religious displays, protests, etc. This applies to all religions and has for sometime. Every Friday, Muslims lock down entire areas of Paris into No-Go areas while they pray. Christians, Jews, secular citizens, all, are barred from passage and function. This backdrop, and the muslim riots give context to the concerns of authorities regarding the mechanations of these protests. As France, for the most part, has a tolerable environment for various religions it must be concluded that authorities would not have acted in this manner had they the choice, or the wise counsel otherwise.

 

The absurdity of suggesting Muslims and others protesting, or not, has the great weight and history of liberty and freedom of speech to support their actions belies the fact that these freedoms exist for no one throughout the muslim world, least of all non muslims. Masking your disdain for Jews as dispassion has hardly worked. I know these common refrains; we have all heard them by omission- when Jewish innocents die- Jews died. When Muslim innocents die- innocents died! Its palpable.

 

Listening to terrorist apologists take this position to the next level they then bemoan the inequality of the deaths on each side (See UN Spokesperson on Iron Dome, etc., ad nauseum). I reasonably infer were losses equal on both sides the argument would then be that in relation to citizen population Israel is losing less lives. Its totally sick watching the ethical relativists such as yourself try to cloak in reason that which is deplorable universally- Hamas kills its own. Hamas kills others. Hamas kills all. Manifesting in polity the mandate of their sacred books their reason for existence is declared without ambiguity in the Hamas Charter= to kill every single Jew alive. Hamas murders its own who protest their using schools militarily, hospitals, and public spaces for the conduct of war, and apologists such as yourself, who have only assigned your lately declared opinion to an issue you know little about, weep for the "innocents." Rarely in warfare has one side done so much to mitigate injury for so many. Yet, Hamas refuses to let their own people seek shelter, flee, or hide in order to amass numbers for international consumption. People who buy this are pawns and don't know it or care. That is a slave!

 

 

Arjunadawn

Do you think the Israeli deaths previous to the incursion, justify the amount of Israeli deaths afterward? No one else will answer, perhaps you would care to.
 

 

 

NO! Without question, the immediate Israeli deaths leading up to this debacle make the continued action indefensible- on that pretext alone. If this is the nature of your question, the answer is no. Its a peculiar thing for me as the only people I know throughout that slice of earth are all Muslims, the ones that are still alive anyway. I don't have any Israeli friends or contacts, yet I think it is pretty clear I tend to support Israel in my posts. Why? I think it is because I deeply appreciate the nature of their predicament, and the massive forces arrayed against them- politically, militarily, socially, intellectually, religiously, culturally, geographically, regarding industry and natural resources.. you get my point.

 

Israel cannot have the luxury of viewing unfolding events in antecedent- or causal time. Israel has made grave mistakes by not employing the breadth of their intelligence/military/political industry in their calculations. Israel has no choice. No other country that I can think of existed so perilously close to their own demise every single moment. As I have posted elsewhere, I have no clue how to resolve the issue in the Middle east, but I do declare I have very objective thoughts about it all.
 

NOTE: I just re read your post; I think I got it right: You ask if the previous Israeli deaths justify the later Palestinian deaths? I presumed this was correct.

 

 

Thank you Ajunadawn, it is much appreciated. If I may, I would like to respond to your reasoned response in more depth later, as I am about to take my son out. However, you have the courage of your convictions and I appreciate that, unlike others.

 

However, your last line is incorrect, I posted specifically regarding Israeli deaths, before and afterward.

 

[arjunadawn]

Please forgive me jumping in on this post line. I would like to take a stab at something here. The question to provide evidence of Antisemitic posts on TV may- may- leave a person who presumed you sensed these threads previously, stumped a bit. How is this?

 

When I read this question it seemed like a lot of work (you can slowly amass an perception but then when called to defend it you would have to revisit not only every post in this thread but every other related thread that silently informed your antisemitic sense). Yea, a lot of work. I think there have been antisemitic posts here, but probably less than others realize. I actually believe that it is none of anyone's business if people want to hate another. I don't hate anyone but I am afraid to live in a world, like now, where people don't have the right to free association, or even to hate if they choose. This does not translate into action and if such people boycotted others they hate, or didn't help them fix a flat tire, that is their business. You cannot inculcate compassion by law or peer pressure.

 

Having said that there are many posts here that are simply suggestive of disdain, and I suspect the majority of TV folks are just others who have a different opinion then me, or Israel supporters, but its not really hatred. It feels like hatred only because the Jewish Lobby has been so effective over the past decades in drilling into the brains of the Western World that even valid Israeli critique smells of antisemitism. (On this point beware- The Organization of Islamic Countries has taken notice of this Jewish success and are aggressively pushing for anti blasphemy laws at the national and supranational levels- the power of victimization). Therefore, various cultural mores and filters in our heads could easily make an Israeli supporter sense Jew hatred in their posts (coupled with the brevity of posts), where perhaps there is just war hatred, or underdog support. Its strange for me, an Israeli supporter, generally, because I am actually quite sick of the whole lot of folks from that area, their God's mandate, and their perilously drawing the remainder of the enlightened world into the primitive drama they craft in their collective delusion.

Edited August 10, 2014 by arjunadawn

[dr_lucas]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

 

 

 I have a life thank you.

 

 

And many people of all persuasions now don't.

 

And all I ask is for answers to my questions, maybe I ask too much?
 

 

 

I was not talking to you and you have clipped my post and made it completely out of context. That is against forum rules!, At NO TIME have you asked ME any questions. Take your gripe to the people that you asked questions to and leave me out of it. Clear!

 

Mossfinn, I am completely with GJ on this one.

You are harassing and pushing too strongly while you are not willing to go back to the beginning of discussions to get up to speed.

Some other things you are doing (as GJ mentioned) are against forum rules and the mods won't like them one bit... (gentle hint)

[GentlemanJim]

 

 

 

 

 

" I have my suspicions and plenty of circumstantial evidence, " If you have evidence then post it, I imagine it would not then be against forum rules if it is true and valid.

 

 

 

How's this? You were part of this conversation and did not even comment on it. 

 

http://grabilla.com/0480a-dbccc441-97bb-48b9-ac24-b72dd6ef2312.png

 

 

In reverse I don't see any comments rejecting some posters calls for nuclear attacks on Muslim countries and other calls for genocide against Muslims in other topics, in fact some pro Israel members in this very topic use 'likes' for approval
 

 

 

The main point was not about whether he commented on it or not, it was about the fact that he requested evidence for such Antisemitic posts and UG provided a proof of that very thing, including saying that he was part of that specific conversation, so can't say he didn't see.

You, however, offered no such proof.

 

 

Steady on Tonto! Just where exactly is the proof I was part of the conversation in the post the UG has linked to? Do you read every single post on every single thread you read? Are you calling me a liar because UG has said "i was part of a conversation'? I CAN say I did not see it!  After reading the post linked to, I don't consider it anti-semitic at all, it links to articles explaining the rising statistics of people who now have anti-Israeli feelings.

[Mossfinn]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

 

 

 I have a life thank you.

 

 

And many people of all persuasions now don't.

 

And all I ask is for answers to my questions, maybe I ask too much?
 

 

 

I was not talking to you and you have clipped my post and made it completely out of context. That is against forum rules!, At NO TIME have you asked ME any questions. Take your gripe to the people that you asked questions to and leave me out of it. Clear!

 

Jim, my apologies, my flippant response has angered you and that is inexcusable. I will report it and ask for it to be removed, it has had the response I neither expected, or wanted, and in absolutely no way was directed at you.

 

Moss

 

[simple1]

 

 

 

It is a war. A war on terror in a urban area, not in the desert. Sadly, innocents die in wars and the images are always far too graphic, even when there is no genocide, no slaughter, no massacre and no ethnic cleansing. In all these legal terms, there must be intent to kill. Do you suggest the IDF intends to kill and deliberately targets civilians?

 

This issue has been raised on numerous ocassions. IDF are fully aware that by attacking missile sites, arms storage etc etc civilians will die (intent). That's a tactical war fighting decision, it is what it is, why try and spin by using the highlighted words; just sophistry.

 

 

Well, I offered hard evidence and clear facts from reliable articles and videos proving exactly the opposite of your opinion, so who is doing the spinning now?

Would you like me to repost my posts as a reminder?

 

 

No. I hold a different perspective on the moral justification of attacking targets where within meters civilians reside such as school and hospitals. Nor in this conflict to destroy essential civilian infrastructure

[Mossfinn]

 

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

 

 

 I have a life thank you.

 

 

And many people of all persuasions now don't.

 

And all I ask is for answers to my questions, maybe I ask too much?
 

 

 

I was not talking to you and you have clipped my post and made it completely out of context. That is against forum rules!, At NO TIME have you asked ME any questions. Take your gripe to the people that you asked questions to and leave me out of it. Clear!

 

Mossfinn, I am completely with GJ on this one.

You are harassing and pushing too strongly while you are not willing to go back to the beginning of discussions to get up to speed.

Some other things you are doing (as GJ mentioned) are against forum rules and the mods won't like them one bit... (gentle hint)

 

I have apologised to Jim, my action was flippant and not directed at him, but was wrong and I have genuinely apologised. However, I am not harassing, I just want genuine answers that you will not give. You seem quite happy to reiterate the same responses, why not answer my simple question, or do you not like the response you may get? Please do not proffer advice regarding moderation.

 

Jim, I have reported my post, please suggest sanction if you think it is warranted.

[dr_lucas]

 

 

 

 

 

This issue has been raised on numerous ocassions. IDF are fully aware that by attacking missile sites, arms storage etc etc civilians will die (intent). That's a tactical war fighting decision, it is what it is, why try and spin by using the highlighted words; just sophistry.

 

 

Well, I offered hard evidence and clear facts from reliable articles and videos proving exactly the opposite of your opinion, so who is doing the spinning now?

Would you like me to repost my posts as a reminder?

 

 

No. I hold a different perspective on the moral justification of attacking targets where within meters civilians reside such as school and hospitals. Nor in this conflict to destroy essential civilian infrastructure

 

 

No what?  " I hold a different perspective on the moral justification" ie.  your opinion.

[Ulysses G.]

 

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>
 

 

I have a life thank you.

 
And many people of all persuasions now don't.
 
And all I ask is for answers to my questions, maybe I ask too much?

 

 
I was not talking to you and you have clipped my post and made it completely out of context. That is against forum rules!, At NO TIME have you asked ME any questions. Take your gripe to the people that you asked questions to and leave me out of it. Clear!

 

 
Jim, my apologies, my flippant response has angered you and that is inexcusable. I will report it and ask for it to be removed, it has had the response I neither expected, or wanted, and in absolutely no way was directed at you.
 
Moss

 

GentlemanJim has not figured out that they are on the same side yet. 

[7by7]

 

It does seem strange that posts deemed anti Semitic are removed, yet the majority of Islamaphobic, ones, even if reported, remain!
 
(That may cause me to be off on a holiday; but it had to be said.)

My guess would be, from reading your posts for years, is that what you consider "Islamaphobic", most other people don't.

 

 

If you are as familiar with my posting history as you claim to be you will see that I have regularly and consistently expressed my outrage and condemnation of Islamic terrorists at each and every opportunity.

 

Whilst at the same time defending the right of all people, whatever their religion, to peacefully go about their lives.

 

In the same way, I condemn and am outraged by the actions of the Israeli government and the IDF, for reasons which I have posted many times. I wont post them again; as you have said to Mossfinn many times, go back and read them.

 

Doing so does not make me, nor anyone with the same opinion, Judeophobic, anti Semitic or whatever the word of the day is.

 

Neither does it mean I do not support the right of the Israeli people to go peacefully about their daily lives. I have condemned the attacks by Hamas as well.

[Mossfinn]

 

GentlemanJim has not figured out that they are on the same side yet. 

 

You just don't get it do you ugg? I am on nobody's side, just want you to answer a simple question, and yet you dance and hide away behind smoke and obfuscation. If you are so scared of the answer, it is a little shameful really. I just do not have the inclination to read a dozen threads, when all I want is one answer.