Israel

[Dunners]

...A much more precise attack on Hamas with a much lower loss of civilian life.

Fair enough. If that's utter and complete rubbish then I'm more than happy to be put right on a point I may be unsure of.

Can you point me in the direction of the doctrine that has proven success in eliminating a sophisticated military organisation that is fully embedded within civilian infrastructure, and an expansive tunnel system below population centres, and has the not-unsubstantial support and protection of the population, please?

[Dunners]

Once I get this vital information I reckon I'll be able to sell for a tidy profit to other militaries around the world. I'm just surprised they never cottoned on to it before. Still, their loss is my gain, I guess.

[Hoover Attack]

The dynamic of taking an existing cause/concept specifically related to one group, and suggesting that when we discuss that cause/concept we should also discuss the importance of other causes and concepts is an exact equivalent in terms of the dynamics. The only difference is the degree to which you might believe it’s legitimate to expand the scope of what should be “remembered” on that day.

Racist gammons spouting 'What about us white folk, why don't we matter?' is nothing like remembering all acts of genocide.

I think the post of mine you quoted functions as the argument against your post. “It’s nothing like” may well be true in terms of the legitimacy of the act of trying to bring other causes into an existing one, but both instances are, demonstrably, instances of attempting to add extra causes or considerations to an existing cause, the proponents of which might object to.

What extra causes or considerations are All Lives Matter trying to add to the Black Lives Matter campaign?

[Hoover Attack]

Despite how it's been reported in certain quarters, even the ICJ didn't feel that the evidence submitted by South Africa was sufficient to conclude a ruling on genocide. Instead the ruling can be summarised as "carry on Israel, but be careful."

"At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention," the judges said.

The ruling required Israel to prevent and punish any public incitements to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and to preserve evidence related to any allegations of genocide there.

Israel must also take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the enclave, it said.

The bits I've copied and pasted have been put in italics. Others should try doing the same.

[Long slender neck]

Its quite a broad definition

The only way to avoid the current civilian causalities would be for Israel not to have retaliated with military force to the Oct 7 attacks.

That is utter and complete rubbish. Retaliation was/is possible without the need for air and missile strikes on such a scale. This is what much of the World has called for. A much more precise attack on Hamas with a much lower loss of civilian life.

Interested to know some details on what you think an appropriate retalition would be?

I would expect Hamas can be quite difficult to identify.

[Dunners]

Also, "heh" at the naïve suggestion that even a "lower loss of civilian life" would still not have resulted in the reaction we've witnessed. There was never going to be any kind of retaliation from Israel that wasn't going to be met with hostile condemnation.

Remember, the protests started in the immediate aftermath of the Oct 7 attacks. People were not even given one day to grieve. There wasn't even enough time to get the guitars out and have a mass singalong of "Don't Look Back in Anger" FFS. And the larger protest movement was in full swing before the ground invasion had commenced.

[BoniO]

...A much more precise attack on Hamas with a much lower loss of civilian life.

Fair enough. If that's utter and complete rubbish then I'm more than happy to be put right on a point I may be unsure of.

Can you point me in the direction of the doctrine that has proven success in eliminating a sophisticated military organisation that is fully embedded within civilian infrastructure, and an expansive tunnel system below population centres, and has the not-unsubstantial support and protection of the population, please?

I merely pointed out that your statement - "The only way to avoid the current civilian causalities would be for Israel not to have retaliated with military force to the Oct 7 attacks." - is rubbish. Israel had other military options to consider other than the widescale destruction of Gaza's infrastructure with attached civilian losses. Many other Countries now believe that Israel's response is not a proportionate one and is costing far too many civilian deaths. Hope this helps.

[BoniO]

Once I get this vital information I reckon I'll be able to sell for a tidy profit to other militaries around the world. I'm just surprised they never cottoned on to it before. Still, their loss is my gain, I guess.

Don't like getting called out do you

[Dunners]

Despite how it's been reported in certain quarters, even the ICJ didn't feel that the evidence submitted by South Africa was sufficient to conclude a ruling on genocide. Instead the ruling can be summarised as "carry on Israel, but be careful."

"At least some of the acts and omissions alleged by South Africa to have been committed by Israel in Gaza appear to be capable of falling within the provisions of the (Genocide) Convention," the judges said.

The ruling required Israel to prevent and punish any public incitements to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and to preserve evidence related to any allegations of genocide there.

Israel must also take measures to improve the humanitarian situation for Palestinian civilians in the enclave, it said.

The bits I've copied and pasted have been put in italics. Others should try doing the same.

Yep - but the wording, especially the bits I've underscored and put in bold, make the statement vague and noncommittal. It reads to me less of a Court ruling, but more of a political statement. Which is probably what I expected.

As I said; "carry on Israel, but be careful."

[BoniO]

The only way to avoid the current civilian causalities would be for Israel not to have retaliated with military force to the Oct 7 attacks.

That is utter and complete rubbish. Retaliation was/is possible without the need for air and missile strikes on such a scale. This is what much of the World has called for. A much more precise attack on Hamas with a much lower loss of civilian life.

Interested to know some details on what you think an appropriate retalition would be?

I would expect Hamas can be quite difficult to identify.

Something less than their current methods - I'm not aware of what options they had but other Governments are and are calling out Israel's response as excessive.

[Dunners]

...A much more precise attack on Hamas with a much lower loss of civilian life.

Fair enough. If that's utter and complete rubbish then I'm more than happy to be put right on a point I may be unsure of.

Can you point me in the direction of the doctrine that has proven success in eliminating a sophisticated military organisation that is fully embedded within civilian infrastructure, and an expansive tunnel system below population centres, and has the not-unsubstantial support and protection of the population, please?

I merely pointed out that your statement - "The only way to avoid the current civilian causalities would be for Israel not to have retaliated with military force to the Oct 7 attacks." - is rubbish. Israel had other military options to consider other than the widescale destruction of Gaza's infrastructure with attached civilian losses. Many other Countries now believe that Israel's response is not a proportionate and is costing far too many civilian deaths. Hope this helps.

Actually, you make an excellent point. What you actually originally said was:

"Retaliation was/is possible without the need for air and missile strikes on such a scale."

And you're absolutely right. An alternative retaliation was possible. Sure, it would have been utterly pointless and ineffective, and would have failed in the (admittedly ridiculous) objective of "destroying Hamas". But Israel certainly could have retaliated in a different way that resulted in (an unspecified) fewer amount of causalities. Which would still have been meet with utter condemnation.

[Dunners]

I'm not aware of what options they had but other Governments are and are calling out Israel's response as excessive.

What "other government's are you referring to here? Suddenly your statements seem a lot less confident. As I asked, please feel free to point me in the direction of the appropriate doctrine.

[BoniO]

Fair enough. If that's utter and complete rubbish then I'm more than happy to be put right on a point I may be unsure of.

Can you point me in the direction of the doctrine that has proven success in eliminating a sophisticated military organisation that is fully embedded within civilian infrastructure, and an expansive tunnel system below population centres, and has the not-unsubstantial support and protection of the population, please?

I merely pointed out that your statement - "The only way to avoid the current civilian causalities would be for Israel not to have retaliated with military force to the Oct 7 attacks." - is rubbish. Israel had other military options to consider other than the widescale destruction of Gaza's infrastructure with attached civilian losses. Many other Countries now believe that Israel's response is not a proportionate and is costing far too many civilian deaths. Hope this helps.

Actually, you make an excellent point. What you actually originally said was:

"Retaliation was/is possible without the need for air and missile strikes on such a scale."

And you're absolutely right. An alternative retaliation was possible. Sure, it would have been utterly pointless and ineffective, and would have failed in the (admittedly ridiculous) objective of "destroying Hamas". But Israel certainly could have retaliated in a different way that resulted in (an unspecified) fewer amount of causalities. Which would still have been meet with utter condemnation.

Fine. You've admitted what you wrote was wrong. I'm OK with that.

[Dunners]

Yep. For instance, they could have had a custard pie fight.

[CEB]

Racist gammons spouting 'What about us white folk, why don't we matter?' is nothing like remembering all acts of genocide.

I think the post of mine you quoted functions as the argument against your post. “It’s nothing like” may well be true in terms of the legitimacy of the act of trying to bring other causes into an existing one, but both instances are, demonstrably, instances of attempting to add extra causes or considerations to an existing cause, the proponents of which might object to.

What extra causes or considerations are All Lives Matter trying to add to the Black Lives Matter campaign?

Misguided and bigoted ones. I’m not sure how many ways there are of saying this: the dynamic is the same, it’s the perceived legitimacy or otherwise of doing so that is in question.

[Hoover Attack]

I'm not sure how many ways there are of saying this; they are not the same thing, the 'dynamic' is totally different.

Those calling for All Lives Matter are doing so because they don't believe in the Black Lives Matter movement.

Saying that it's nice to spare a thought for all the other genocides isn't being said because people don't believe in remembering the Holocaust.

[CEB]

I'm not sure how many ways there are of saying this; they are not the same thing, the 'dynamic' is totally different.

Those calling for All Lives Matter are doing so because they don't believe in the Black Lives Matter movement.

Saying that it's nice to spare a thought for all the other genocides isn't being said because people don't believe in remembering the Holocaust.

They “don’t believe in the movement” because they would argue - whether you believe they do so in good faith - that a focus on one group is not harmed by including another group, and that in fact the wider aims of the group are best achieved by recognition of shared humanity.

The argument of BLM to that is “black people’s experiences make it valid to have a movement that’s just for them”


You’re operating on an assumption that one is good and one is bad - my point is that the specifics and the context are what makes it good or bad, but that the actual dynamic - expanding the scope of a thing to include something else - is the same

[Hoover Attack]

Shut up, GERF.

[ComeOnYouOs]

Once again false claims of Anti Semitism raise their ugly head.
The Labour candidate for Rochdale suspended for anti semitic remarks, when in fact there's nothing anti semitic in what he said. He had a comment that maybe Israels defences were deliberately relaxed to allow Hamas to do what they did, on 7/10, to give Netanyahu an excuse to invade Gaza
How is that anti semitic?
He never mentioned the words Jews or Jewish at all, his comments were aimed at a prime minister of a country, that countries policy.
Once again the usual suspects are on the warpath, conflating Anti zionism with anti semitism
At the rate Starmer is throwing people out of the Labour Party, he'll have no mp's left

[Proposition Joe]

Once again false claims of Anti Semitism raise their ugly head.
The Labour candidate for Rochdale suspended for anti semitic remarks, when in fact there's nothing anti semitic in what he said. He had a comment that maybe Israels defences were deliberately relaxed to allow Hamas to do what they did, on 7/10, to give Netanyahu an excuse to invade Gaza
How is that anti semitic?
He never mentioned the words Jews or Jewish at all, his comments were aimed at a prime minister of a country, that countries policy.
Once again the usual suspects are on the warpath, conflating Anti zionism with anti semitism
At the rate Starmer is throwing people out of the Labour Party, he'll have no mp's left

He did actually rail against "people in the media from certain Jewish quarters", so that's not entirely true. Whether he deserves to be dropped for his other comments is debatable and there are certainly bad faith actors at work here, but that's a pretty indefensible trope to use.

[Long slender neck]

Once again false claims of Anti Semitism raise their ugly head.
The Labour candidate for Rochdale suspended for anti semitic remarks, when in fact there's nothing anti semitic in what he said. He had a comment that maybe Israels defences were deliberately relaxed to allow Hamas to do what they did, on 7/10, to give Netanyahu an excuse to invade Gaza
How is that anti semitic?
He never mentioned the words Jews or Jewish at all, his comments were aimed at a prime minister of a country, that countries policy.
Once again the usual suspects are on the warpath, conflating Anti zionism with anti semitism
At the rate Starmer is throwing people out of the Labour Party, he'll have no mp's left

MPs shouldnt be spouting conspiracy theories.

[Hoover Attack]

Once again false claims of Anti Semitism raise their ugly head.
The Labour candidate for Rochdale suspended for anti semitic remarks, when in fact there's nothing anti semitic in what he said. He had a comment that maybe Israels defences were deliberately relaxed to allow Hamas to do what they did, on 7/10, to give Netanyahu an excuse to invade Gaza
How is that anti semitic?
He never mentioned the words Jews or Jewish at all, his comments were aimed at a prime minister of a country, that countries policy.
Once again the usual suspects are on the warpath, conflating Anti zionism with anti semitism
At the rate Starmer is throwing people out of the Labour Party, he'll have no mp's left

Sirkier didn't kick him out for suggesting Israel deliberately dropped their defences to pave the way for their retaliatory offensive.

He kicked him out for something else he said.

[Hoover Attack]

A Eurovision spokesperson told the Guardian that the song contest “remains a non-political event”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment ... 4d47&ei=16

[CEB]

I always say, if Gene Simmons, Helen Mirren and Boy George are on board, who am I to argue?

[ComeOnYouOs]

A Eurovision spokesperson told the Guardian that the song contest “remains a non-political event”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment ... 4d47&ei=16

A song contest, in light of everything else thats going off at the moment isnt that important, but once again the hypocrisy and double standards are terrible.
Russia were excluded for invading Ukraine, but Israel who have invaded Gaza, and in the process murdered around 30,000 innocent civilians ( more when those under the rubble are discovered), are going to be allowed to take part!
Ridiculous