A Political Thread pt. 2

[Leonormous Boozer]

It's really not an impossible question. I'm not even opposed to a "I don't know" answer to it but if you were engaging with the question honestly you could've given me some vague idea about what kind of response would've been justified in your opinion.

"At an absolute minimum Israel have been acting disproportionately since early May when they didn't engage in a ceasefire that would have got them their hostages back. In reality, far before that."

That's an reasonably definitive answer to be honest. Coupled with this I have provided a range in which I think a proportional response lies:-

"I fail to see what military objective Palestinian civilians are dying under bombfire for. This was evident within about 72 hours of 7 October when it was clear that Hamas had taken the hostages into their tunnels and that civilian life can't be leveraged over Hamas nor can they be bombed out of existance."

It's definitely a far more legitimate response than this:-

"Concerned with potential plans? As I've said, I will wait and see if said plans come to fruition rather than forming an opinion on something that might not happen. If it does then sure, not good. A war crime."

Where you failed to:

1. Realise that you were the person who initially entered into an argument based on plans that Netanyahu was considering having already asked deflecting questions in bad faith;

2. Comprehend the basic legal principal of intent (a qualified and, I'm pretty sure practicing lawyer pointed this particular one out to you too); and

3. Comprehend the basic legal principal of proportionality.

Do you wonder why most rational people/western politicians, don't engage in the kind of rhetoric that you did? I mean, I don't want to hold myself up to too high a standard but categorising something complex as racist revenge is just a bit silly to me but if you want to equate that with me not caring about racism or Palestinian lives then fine I guess.

Politicians don't engage in it because they have to be diplomatic. I don't and I've seen enough videos of Israelis wishing death on all Palestinians to make up my mind. The whole conflict in the middle east boils down to race and religion.

You haven't even attempted to explain what extensive bombing of Gaza has achieved or why its justified when it isn't going to destroy Hamas. You haven't acknowledged that Palestinian lives that are being lost for nothing.

I thought it was the Brits that stole the land?

1. Is Britain not in Europe?

2. Why are you deflecting from a factual statement. 85% of Israelis in 1948 were European.

Feel free to respond to this one but I'm happy with the points I've made and understanding of the subject matter and I'm signing out so your deflective questions (that I can assure you aren't nearly as effective a tool as you think) can be left out of it.

 

[Welsh Exile]

"At an absolute minimum Israel have been acting disproportionately since early May when they didn't engage in a ceasefire that would have got them their hostages back. In reality, far before that."

That's an reasonably definitive answer to be honest. Coupled with this I have provided a range in which I think a proportional response lies:-

"I fail to see what military objective Palestinian civilians are dying under bombfire for. This was evident within about 72 hours of 7 October when it was clear that Hamas had taken the hostages into their tunnels and that civilian life can't be leveraged over Hamas nor can they be bombed out of existance."

It's definitely a far more legitimate response than this:-

"Concerned with potential plans? As I've said, I will wait and see if said plans come to fruition rather than forming an opinion on something that might not happen. If it does then sure, not good. A war crime."

Where you failed to:

1. Realise that you were the person who initially entered into an argument based on plans that Netanyahu was considering having already asked deflecting questions in bad faith;

2. Comprehend the basic legal principal of intent (a qualified and, I'm pretty sure practicing lawyer pointed this particular one out to you too); and

3. Comprehend the basic legal principal of proportionality.


Politicians don't engage in it because they have to be diplomatic. I don't and I've seen enough videos of Israelis wishing death on all Palestinians to make up my mind. The whole conflict in the middle east boils down to race and religion.

You haven't even attempted to explain what extensive bombing of Gaza has achieved or why its justified when it isn't going to destroy Hamas. You haven't acknowledged that Palestinian lives that are being lost for nothing.

1. Is Britain not in Europe?

2. Why are you deflecting from a factual statement. 85% of Israelis in 1948 were European.

Feel free to respond to this one but I'm happy with the points I've made and understanding of the subject matter and I'm signing out so your deflective questions (that I can assure you aren't nearly as effective a tool as you think) can be left out of it.

I had a response typed out but it is late. I do find it genuinely interesting hearing views that seem so at odds with my own (I wouldn't engage otherwise) so any questions you may feel are deflective are certainly not intended that way.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Meanwhile, in the good ol US of A

 

[Al Bangor]

Israel targets majority Christian village in Lebanon - ABC listen

Fighting is intensifying as millions of Israelis have been forced into bomb shelters, as rockets from Lebanon were fired towards the city of Tel Aviv.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Al Bangor]

 

[Al Bangor]