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

He's clearly very left wing and pro-Palestine and anti-Israel in his beliefs. I don't think it would be fair to accuse him though of being a denier that October 7th even happened. I would say the likes of Claire Daly and Mick Wallace are even further to the left than he is.

Does he actually say that 800 civilians were 'murdered' or merely 'killed'?

Does he specifically condemn Hamas for those murders, or is it just condemning the killings in general without assigning culpability?

Such activists as Hickey, Daly, Wallace can be 'Jesuitical' in their phrasing to give themselves wiggle room, or is that weasel room.

I think there is a deliberate attempt to sow confusion about the atrocities Hamas carried out on October 7th, nit picking on details at the risk of obscuring the real truth - that they were "brutal terrorist attacks carried out by people intent on harming as many Israelis as they could." That in those attacks they deliberatley inflicted atrocities against civilians, regardless of age or gender. There were maimings, beheadings, burnings, rapes and the brutalisation extended to infants and children. They were babies mutilated, there were beheadings, that somehow grew legs into "40 beheaded babies". Were there 40 beheaded babies? Seems not. But they were dead babies, deliberately killed by Hamas. That is the real truth Hamas defenders and supporters are trying to obscure.

As for the rest - largely answered below in response to similar questions from Sir_Name.

I'm not asking you to blindly accept anything, but the red flags that someone is a Hamas supporter comes when...

It is that these questions are only ever asked of one side.

And are not balanced - as you have done, with a clear and unambiguous description of Hamas as brutal terrorists.

I'm not sure how that relates to anything that was said. Are we not allowed to challenge them???

What was satirical about the comments??? What was funny? Is this satire or comedy ever deployed against Hamas?

I'd rather commentators that are Hamas supporters just come out and say it and be honest instead of lying and put on a false pretence of neutrality. There is nothing satirically worthy about that approach either.

Come back to me when Hickey posts something balanced, because at the moment it just seems like the same dishonest "just asking questions" line I've heard before.

Language is indeed important, I agree. So you say Israel is "behaving with a disgraceful disregard for civilian collateral damage". The UN says it is an unparalleled loss of civilian life in modern times. I say it is a relentless attack on a largely defenceless civilian population. Attacks on public buildings and refugee camps. I think we're all basically on the one page there.

As for jackboots, the analogy is apt since the IDF is a well equipped, trained and ruthless force. This war on Gaza is much about public perception and that is the image firmly planted by the actions of the IDF in the public mind. It's a PR disaster for Israel, which maybe is slowly sinking in and hence a move towards a ceasefire. But the damage is done.

It is not a numbers game, it is the nature of what they did.

"Supposed" ???

Eh no, Hamas deliberately and wilfully murdered Israeli babies.

Are you denying that?

Yes or no?

Does Hickey acknowledge that and condemn Hamas for it?

Is Hickey ever moved to point out the facts of what Hamas has done?

Or ask questions when accusations of atrocity are made against Israel?

Because from what's been posted so far, it is just the standard "just asking questions" schtick we've seen so many times before, which is just masking a closet Hamas defender and terrorist apologist.

Tadgh Hicky is a fool and a Grifter.

He is currently selling a book and tickets to his show. So any publicity is good for the bottom line for him first and foremost.

He will jump and any and all bandwagons and he takes himself soooooo seriously as if he is a serious social commentator on matters.

On social media I see partisan posts on this topic, no pretence of comedy or satire.

I'm not aware of any requirement for satire that only one particular position on a topic must be mocked. Within the context of one particular piece - yes. But not across all output from same source.

It is obvious the satire is not being done in the name of comedy first, but to serve his political beliefs.

If the UN is saying that it is an unparalleled loss of civilian life in modern times then they must have a very short memory.

They are in Yemen where the civilian death toll is far higher.

They are in Ethiopia where the civilian death toll was far higher.

They are in Sudan where the civilian death toll is far higher.

They weren't in Rwanda, where the civilian death toll was over three quarters of a million. Their incompetence in the management of the aftermath of that actual attempted genocide led in no small part to the Congolese war which killed over 5 million people.

Is the UN really saying that? Seriously? Unparalleled in modern times. Are they taking the piss?

The Iranian Army is well trained, well equipped and actually ruthless. As are many others around the world. The Indonesian army, the one that has actually carried out a genocide and is actively attempting to carry out another one as we speak, is also well trained, well equipped and is actually ruthless. Are they all Nazis as well?

With all due respect, I did not enact godwins law. You did. It was you not I brought nazi into this conversation. When I mentioned why people might feel there is a correlation I said Jewish history. I didn’t say nazi. You’re trying to put a square peg into a round hole. I have been very clear as to why I believe there are legitimate questions. Ones which need answering. I imagine Israel feel that way too to see what failed security wise on the 7th and what can be done to ensure it will never happen again.

You mentioned people who are picking apart what Israel is doing and not what other countries are doing is anti semite. This is a thread about Hamas/Palestine and Israel. It’s a discussion forum. When posters mentioned comparisons to IRA very early on in the thread they were lambasted for not comparing like with like. There is a long history there. Its foolish for the point of discussion to pretend there’s not.

Are you denying there are posts on the thread who compared Jews to Nazis? I didn't bring it into the conversation. I'm pointing out how it is anti-semitic. You are the one who jumped in challenging it, creating the impression you think it is a valid comparison to deploy.

It is a thread about Hamas\Palestine and Israel, but when hatred is directed at Israel it is entirely valid to question why it is directed at Israel when similar conduct elsewhere does not generate such hate. Or when countries actually engaged in worse conduct start pontificating about the conflict, it is entirely valid to point it out. It is not whataboutery. There is something about the level of hate and scrutiny of Israel that requires explanation and that can only be done with reference to their history and other conflicts.

Do you not follow the news? Well reported today.

Is that official enough for you? Sufficient evidence?

I get that if references are made to another separate conflict that that can be referred to as whataboutery but even referring to civilian casualties on both sides seems to be called whataboutery by the diehard supporters of Israel's action since the attack. I dont think they want to read about kids being blown to pieces.

I think it is right to call out Hamas supporters but to have every post talking about antisemitism is a bit obsessive.

Yemen, Sudan, Ethiopia are all conflicts (and there are more) that have grater death tolls but the death toll in Gaza has been reached in a matter of weeks. That is the significant part here.

If you can't grasp that or think the UN would be making misleading statements to the point that they were 'taking the piss' then, I don't know what to tell you.

For the love of God, don't be so obtuse.

We were told that 40 babies were beheaded, then that it couldn't be confirmed, then that maybe they hadn't been beheaded, but had died, then that the number was smaller. That was simply my point, that there was ambiguity around the events.

Any outrage you feel about the deaths of Israeli babies, should be magnified with respect to the deaths on the Palestinian side given the vastly greater numbers.

That's it. This continued justification of Israels actions because of X number of lives tragically taken deserves to be questioned given the (X times Y) numbers of lives tragically taken on the Palestinian side.

The refusal to see this is what infuriates a lot of observers (including Hickey I imagine) because it implies that some lives are more valuable than others.