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

Criticism of Israel the state and how it operates does not equal roundly hating Jews and wishing them all dead or any kind of anti-Semitism.

The fact that the leaders of Israel are Jewish is beside the point; the problem is how they operate. Their ethnicity/religion is irrelevant. But, of course, it's a very handy way to shut down any criticism of Israel. No one wants to be labelled an anti-semite (and thus be sub-consciously hinted at being a Nazi).

The fact that this needs to be pointed out every other page shows how deeply the roots of this trope have reached.

Do you need some help moving those goalposts?

First it was "I genuinely haven't seen anyone in this thread call for the annihilation of Israel. Evidence please."

Then you claimed that the poster was just "asking a rhetorical question" and not explicitly calling for the destruction of Israel. Then I posted other examples from that individual where they clarified that it wasn't "just" a "rhetorical question"

Then you asked for evidence that other posters agree, and I provided it. And yes, that's how the Thanks! button works - one tends to thank a post if they find something worthwhile in the post. And if you thank a post that calls for the total destruction of the worlds only Jewish state, then ... yes, you're probably on the same page as the poster to some extent.

There are many countries in the world solely based on religion. Many countries have the crescent moon on their flag and some explicitly state that the Quran is their constitution. If the only state in the world you have a real problem with the existence of, is the one that also co-incidentally happens to be the worlds' only Jewish state ... that raises questions.

Extreme events tend to provoke extreme reactions. Wasn't that the whole point of events that day

No, I'm not moving the goalposts at all.

I never "claimed" your first quoted post was a question - it IS a question I stated as much. See the squiggly thing at the end of the sentence? Just like this one? That's a question. <-- That's a statement. See the difference? The post was a question. Not a statement.

No - you didn't provide evidence that other posters agree . You simply provided a list of people that clicked the "thanks" button.

You state that "one tends to thank a post if they find something worthwhile in the post". You also provide a clicked thank you button as "evidence". I'm not buying that at all. You allude to it yourself - a "thanks" is not evidence.

And do I detect a bit of a row back here?

"And if you thank a post that calls for the total destruction of the worlds only Jewish state, then ... yes, you're probably on the same page as the poster to some extent."

"probably on the same page" is not evidence that, as you stated, "Some posters here want the State of Israel to be obliterated"

Words matter. Stating that "Some posters here want the State of Israel to be obliterated" is a hefty accusation. I asked for evidence of "some posters". You have provided none.

Maybe the four people who thanked that post your referred to thanked the poster for calling out your support of genocide by Israel? Perhaps that was the worthwhile bit they they were thanking?

Go click the link for post 24691: ceadaoin. had clearly understood Snooker's posts as calling for the obliteration of Israel and Snooker responded by explicitly defending doing so, in clear and unambiguous terms. And that poster explicitly used radical-Leftist language like "settler-colonialism" which is a provable falsehood. And their posts were popular. And yes, one generally does not thank posts unless there's something worthwhile in it. All I saw was deranged, genocidal psychobabble, but obviously the 4 fans saw something different.

And FWIW, a loaded question is the same as a statement, since it contains inherent claims.

It's revenge. The U,S quite early on reminded Israel not to follow the mistakes the US made post 9/11. They didn't listen, they turned the revenge dial up past 10.

How a country who suffered such a horrendous act of terrorism can loose public opinion in such a short timeframe makes you wonder the horrific suffering they are instilling on the innocent civilians in Gaza.

Israel could have used the Oct 7th attacks to bring about change in Gaza. They blew that, they went from victim to aggressor in days.

Fair enough. My view was that it really was impossible to read Snooker Loopys posts and not conclude that they want to obliterate Israel. Nor can I see any reason for thanking their posts other than broad alignment between (for the want of better words) thanker and thanked.

That was why I came to the conclusion that I did.

Wonder if there will be much fallout from the war crime of murdering surrendering unarmed men. The fact they were actually Israeli hostages is completely insignificant really and is just the reason we know about it.

Nope.

Its not a racist issue and its a lazy tired argument but tbf it gets you a few likes every time.

I think that's a Western perspective.

Neither side in this conflict care about external opinion. It's water of a ducks back. Moderate approach hasn't worked for either side. Expecting them to try it again after such an massacre is naive.

Probably less than RT or PressTV, but they're certainly no longer an independent voice.

Why do you think they aren't liars, given who owns them?

Eh, South Africa is still a state. It's the Apartheid that was 'obliterated'

Not what I said though. When you have to lie about other posters' posts, you're the one with the problem.

That depends on the broadcasting legislation in each country and the protections afforded to freedom of thought and speech.

For example, you don't really imagine that Russia Today has the same level of editorial independence as the BBC do you? Yet both of them are state-owned.

Or maybe you do?

My first thought is "why do you want to know?"

But since you asked - I wouldn't be in the habit of quoting every single word someone has posted - just the salient points that (in my opinion) further the debate.

If you think I was trying to be surreptitious, manipulative or disingenuous then just say so. I don't think I was. If you're just asking a genuine question, see the above response.

If you read the particular thread of the debate, I think that debate is over. But feel free to resurrect it.