Hamas Israel War

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

how many child deaths before it is no longer considered proportionate?

I don’t like the use of this word, proportionate.

What’s proportionate. What in your opinion would be a “proportionate” response from Israel?

Should they have gone into Gaza and abducted the exact same number of Men, Women, Children, babies and OAPs that Hamas killed? Brought them into Israel and beheaded the exact same number of babies? Tortured the exact number of Children in front their parents? Raped the exact number of women, murdered in cold blood the exact number of people.

That would be a proportionate response, wouldn’t it? In the truest sense of the word.

Whatever Israel’s response, it will never be a proportionate response to what happened……or are just boiling it down to pure numbers game?

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Interesting article on the tunnels.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67097124

Decent article from the BBC, thanks for sharing.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don’t like the use of this word, proportionate.

What’s proportionate. What in your opinion would be a “proportionate” response from Israel?

Should they have gone into Gaza and abducted the exact same number of Men, Women, Children, babies and OAPs that Hamas killed? Brought them into Israel and beheaded the exact same number of babies? Tortured the exact number of Children in front their parents? Raped the exact number of women, murdered in cold blood the exact number of people.

That would be a proportionate response, wouldn’t it? In the truest sense of the word.

Whatever Israel’s response, it will never be a proportionate response to what happened……or are just boiling it down to pure numbers game?

Well no, you’ve just described war crimes.

A proportionate response - I’m sure we’d actually agree on - is one that ruthlessly slaughters Hamas (and any entities assisting) while minimising civilian casualties. One that reduces its capabilities to strike Israel. It’s a balancing act that could be debated almost endlessly.

But this ain’t it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

A proportionate response - I’m sure we’d actually agree on - is one that ruthlessly slaughters Hamas (and any entities assisting)

We can agree on that.

while minimising civilian casualties.

And that

One that reduces its capabilities to strike Israel.

And that

It’s a balancing act that could be debated almost endlessly.

Which it will be as it could be debated that, Israel is trying to do all of the above.

But this ain’t it.

That’s debatable.

[jfman]

Pierre we debated this in a civil way despite quite fundamental disagreements over the first few days and I know deep down you wouldn’t take up those positions at this point.

At absolute best Israel are at the limit, if not passing it a few days ago. There’s nothing to be gained continuing like this.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by richard-john56

What Israel is doing to Gaza seems like a Warsaw II scenario.

What Hamas did in Israel seems like an Oradour II scenario.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What Hamas did in Israel seems like an Oradour II scenario.

That’s just triggered a memory of visiting there some thirty odd years ago.

Incredible place but for all the wrong reasons

Thank you

Originally Posted by jfman

I see the Palestinian families can suck it brigade is now onto accusing forum members of being anti-Semitic.

Where ? Please provide details as Ive looked back and I cant find this.

[1andrew1]

Some more analysis on that Christian hospital bombing story via a short Channel 4 video. Despite this, the fact that Hamas has not produced the promised fragment of the alleged Israeli missile is quite damning.

Human rights investigators have shared new information with Channel 4 News that they say casts doubt on some aspects of Israel’s account of the Gaza hospital explosion.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/sta...37877604049094

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul

Where ? Please provide details as Ive looked back and I cant find this.

I believe this is the post John referred to:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well said, Pierre, but don’t expect the anti-Jewish guys to understand that. If this was the other way around, those same people would not be making these contorted arguments

anti-Jewish == anti-Semite

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

First image of freed hostages

Originally Posted by ianch99

I believe this is the post John referred to:

anti-Jewish == anti-Semite

Except the post stated "accusing forum members of being anti-Semitic".

I do not see any forum members being accused.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

What's your source about the effectiveness of this approach?


Cutting off the utilities to the entire population is classified by brighter minds than ours as a collective punishment. It's really not that hard to work out why.


I've not expressed a preferred option, I've just said that international law needs to be followed. But don't kid yourself that any military action will end the war.


Benchmarking against Hamas - which is what you did - is a race to the bottom.

I've not followed the words of Sunak and Starmer to know their views on the utilities. Though like of all of us, they acknowledge the right of Israel to defend itself. I'm not sure anyone on this Forum needs to fall in line with their views anyway.

Your approach almost guarantees a Hamas win. Which begs the question. whose side are you on?

---------- Post added at 01:00 ---------- Previous post was at 00:58 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

I believe this is the post John referred to:



anti-Jewish == anti-Semite

10 out of 10. Tell me what other deductions you can deduce.. I’m all ears…

---------- Post added at 01:11 ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://besacenter.org/cutting-the-e...-implications/

Notice how they are talking about the ‘immediate’ impact?

Why are you supporting the Hamas narrative? Do you really think that with a beer in a pub with these nice guys, you can win an argument over a few pints?

You really are delusional if you believe that we can ever come to an agreement with these monsters. They need to be eliminated.

---------- Post added at 01:14 ---------- Previous post was at 01:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

Where ? Please provide details as Ive looked back and I cant find this.

Agreed. A rather curious remark. Too many beers, perhaps.

---------- Post added at 01:16 ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Pierre we debated this in a civil way despite quite fundamental disagreements over the first few days and I know deep down you wouldn’t take up those positions at this point.

At absolute best Israel are at the limit, if not passing it a few days ago. There’s nothing to be gained continuing like this.

It’s curious how little you say about Hamas.

---------- Post added at 01:18 ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Well no, you’ve just described war crimes.

A proportionate response - I’m sure we’d actually agree on - is one that ruthlessly slaughters Hamas (and any entities assisting) while minimising civilian casualties. One that reduces its capabilities to strike Israel. It’s a balancing act that could be debated almost endlessly.

But this ain’t it.

If the aim is to root out Hamas (as opposed to punishing civilians) then it is not a war crime. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Your approach almost guarantees a Hamas win. Which begs the question. whose side are you on?

10 out of 10. Tell me what other deductions you can deduce.. I’m all ears…

Notice how they are talking about the ‘immediate’ impact?

Why are you supporting the Hamas narrative? Do you really think that with a beer in a pub with these nice guys, you can win an argument over a few pints?

You really are delusional if you believe that we can ever come to an agreement with these monsters. They need to be eliminated.

Agreed. A rather curious remark. Too many beers, perhaps.

It’s curious how little you say about Hamas.

If the aim is to root out Hamas (as opposed to punishing civilians) then it is not a war crime. Sorry to burst your bubble.

War crimes aren’t defined by intent, sorry to burst yours!

How much, or how little, I say about Hamas is irrelevant.

• Friday night
• 1 am
• Implying Andrew might be on the “wrong side”
• Calling Hugh deluded and accusing him of following a Hamas “narrative”
• Defining war crimes incorrectly
• Taking 20 mins to form an incoherent post.

Something something beers perhaps?

Notice how they are talking about the ‘immediate’ impact?

Why are you supporting the Hamas narrative? Do you really think that with a beer in a pub with these nice guys, you can win an argument over a few pints?

You really are delusional if you believe that we can ever come to an agreement with these monsters. They need to be eliminated

I posted an independent article highlighting the fact your proposition re power supplies may not have been accurate, and you seem to think that makes me "delusional" and "supporting the Hamas narrative"?

Reading through this particular thread has increased my headache. I’m wishing I had imbibed last night because I might actually understand what everyone’s beef is.