Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

More "hey look over there".

Isn't it absolutely mental that someone is able to justify in their own mind a missile strike on ambulances full of medics and injured people, based on the fact that maybe a decade earlier some other completely unrelated people used one in an attack somewhere.

Join us next time when blanch excuses Israeli soldiers lining up Palestinian women along a trench and machine gunning them into it by relating how there was a story of how a Vietcong woman once hid a bomb under her skirt during the Vietnam war*

(They haven't done this as far as I am aware..........yet)

The world has changed (and most of it is bad), but that does not absolve Israel for policy actions (or inactions) over the past 30 years IMO.

Regardless of negative trends like rise of Islamic fundamentalism + associated violence etc. + the massive problems in the wider Arab world, the Palestinian issue exists as a kind of internal problem for Israel they have shown no interest in "solving" (other than by eventually winning [somehow] and getting their way in full, as I said).

You even kind of admit that yourself stating they were content to "build high walls" and I would say, not just watch the Arab world burn itself up, but throw some matches and petrol on the fires if possible.

For years at height of US post Sept. 11th mania for great projects to remake the ME, like the Iraq invasion & occupation, I seem to remember those Netanyahu govts. + Israeli right egging on the US to (boldly?) go forth and invade Iran too and get rid of the Mullahs for them (given disaster of Iraq, what kind of shít show would that have been I wonder)!

🤣 This is the line you took from my posts to respond to with regards to Israel being an occupying power? All the links I provided and this is the only line you have contention with. Jokeshop!

I'll tell you what, little busy now but I will respond with a full list later and you can help me crunch the numbers. Deal?

In the meantime why don't you actually answer the question I posed?

Here it is again...

"Would you feel Ireland was occupied by Britain if they controlled our territorial waters, air space, 6 of 7 border crossings, maintained a no buffer zone, controlled the movement of people and goods in and out, were fully dependent on them for water, power, telecoms etc etc? Be honest..."

No doubt and there was a certain logic in it from his point of view.

Hamas or similar was still an inevitable outcome though, the trends of the turn to native thinking, away from European concepts like socialism were well in motion by then, the split from within the Muslim Brotherhood was developing long before Bibi ever came to power in his party, nevermind being pm.

He pushed on an open door.

There was a law professor on the Tonight Show on VM1 last night saying it is completely illegal under international law to bomb a working hospital with doctors and patients in it, even if you believe there are terrorists or weapons there. There is no ambiguity....it is strictly forbidden.

Only one of those things are actually relevant to palestine/israel.

Other stuff that happened,

Taylor Swift

Britney getting emancipated.

Garth Brooks concerts being cancelled.

You even included china and russia in that.

You've chosen an arbitrary point in time and decided that nothing after that matters, except for all the non related stuff that you mentioned.

There were many stumbling blocks to the two state solution but to place all the blame on the Palestinians, and to pick that one moment in time is just silly.

They didn't say 40 babies were beheaded. They said up to 40 babies were killed in a particular village, some of whom were beheaded. It's not completely fake. It's a true statement. For some reason people have latched on to the fact that not all the babies were beheaded as proof that it didn't happen. However, people, including babies, were burnt alive and some beheaded. Video and photo proof of this has been shown to journalists.

I don't know how you can say that no one is denying the savagery of the attack and then in the very next sentence deny the savagery of the attack.

"none of the children were decapitated, sure they were only murdered or burnt alive. That's totally different!" If that's your position then you need to have a look at yourself.

I would argue that the killing of civilians is morally equivalent to the killing of civilians.

The Israeli response is a inhumane atrocity. And yes, I have used the exact same phrase to describe the Hamas attack. That doesn't mean I'm taking the side of hamas. Hamas are scum. So is the Israeli government and military that are killing thousands of children. I would say that someone has to have a blind spot in their morals if they think that the Hamas attack is bad but the israeli response is ok. Literally thousands of children have been killed. That is morally reprehensible. It is disgusting a repugnant.

Now, tell me that because I'm against the bombing of children, that I'm actually supporting the scum that are Hamas. I'm sure someone here will find some way to make it seem ok that children are being killed by indiscriminate bombing, that it doesn't really matter and that I'm actually a Jihadist.

If you think the world of 2000 is the same as now, then I have magic beans to sell you.

The point is of course is that a window of opportunity arrived, where the stars aligned somewhat to give the Palestinians a lot of what they wanted.

But they blew it.

This is on Arafat and the wider PLO movement.

Apparently, there are only 100,000 people still in Gaza City, the rest have moved south. The IDF has even allowed civilians to move south on local roads it controls.

On the face of it sounds ridiculous.

But in the context of a war with Jihad it may be reasonable. Depends what the suspicions are around her and how she's treated after the initial arrest. If she's found to be harmless and is released promptly and uninjured this is no big deal (again, within the context of the world they're living in).

Didn't mean to criticize (happens to me too)

Yes ,it is a good argument about PLO.

Not to say that secularism would not regain its(rightful ) place in the longer term as cultures as a whole (hopefully) come to grip with the awkward reality of living in the world as it is and not as we might like to imagine it.

A long path,but I would wager that secularism is the dog for the long road and that this is being shown below the surface as people get on with their lives.

When did that happen?

Supporter or card carrying member, makes no difference. He was incited by Bibi's messages for violence.