Thug

8 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

Well its your problem if you dont explain yourself and just put smiles all over.

You laughing at my statement of the main cause. Why? what is the 2023 Israels main cause?

Militarry budgets? nah i better give you this: One of the best examples of a war of attrition is World War I on the Italian and the Western Fronts. Both sides were drained until one side did not have enough men, horses, food and other military resources to continue. The term was often used to show a lack of imagination in simply throwing soldiers at their enemy.

Utter nonsense, irrelevant post.

We are not talking about warfare of WW1.

We are not talking about heroic soldiers putting their lives on the line where sheer numbers matter.

Wars these days are won by computers, not humans.

Israels 9 million could beat the Middle East’s 200 million without breaking sweat.

You know it, I know it, and Biden knows it.

But he’s still sending $100bn to them - probably to pay for the propaganda because I don’t know what equipment they need?

Large populations these days are a hinderance, not an advantage.  One American warship could probably win this war. Population : few hundred I’d guess.

Just now, Tumblerseven said:

Oh man this is like actually debating white supremacist and nazis all over again. I cant believe it.

Are you pretending that you dont understand what are implications of your statement?

When you laugh at my statement that Israel in danger and its fighting for survival because there are legitimate threats you are implying that Its ridiculous you are implying that there are no threats or danger to Israel or if it is is Israel can beat it.

I just posted a list with neighboring countries and their population who dont want Israel existing to show you the credible realistic danger or threat. You completely ignored the threat and focused on another of my statements and laughed some more.

Is it really so far-fetched for me to say that you actually dont care about israel existing? really?

 

And yet more.

i have said MULTIPLE times that Israel have every right to exist, and it’s people to lead a peaceful life not threatened at all times.

I have stated multiple times that what Hamas did was horrific.

im laughing at your statement about ‘main cause’

If you want to try to portray me as some white supremacist nazi for not wanting an entire population decimated under the bullshit disguise of self defence then more power to you.

ok, now that you have listed populations of the world, I’d be grateful if you could now post military budgets too.  Thanks in advance.

1 minute ago, Keyblade said:

Why would they take down those posters? They must not want those hostages to be found in uh *checks notes* London, England.

Woahhhh

Population of London 10 million. (I’m sure that on some level this is very relevant)

anyone that posts like this, clearly doesn’t want Israel to exist.

Shame on you.

4 minutes ago, Tumblerseven said:

Israel 9 miliion population.

Adversarial neighboring countries.

Lebanon 5 million population

Syria 22 million population

Jordan 11 million population

Egypt 110 million population

Palestine 5 million population

Anyone who unironically laughs at that statement actually dont care about Israel existing im certain of it. 

 

Here we go, right on queue.

12 minutes ago, Jareth said:

These people's actions aside - what is the purpose of these posters in the locations they are posted?

The purpose of the posters is to incite a furious reaction which is then to be captured on video and posted online in an attempt to say ‘seeeee.. I told you so.’

That’s the point.

The people tearing them down are stupid for

a) Not accepting these people are victims of a crime

b) for falling into the trap.

14 hours ago, Tumblerseven said:

I think that not every nation deserves a country. I think if you let people choose and the only thing they can do is elect the government with a purpose of terrorizing and attacking their neighbor maybe that country should not exist.

Oh wow, you now sound like Hamas.

kinda ironic, no?

On 24/10/2023 at 11:15, Tumblerseven said:

Yah they are in a broader sense of the conflict and i dont care about any side who does that. I think Israel main cause is to try to survive and defend their land from parties countries who dont like Israel existing. I really dont think that israel main thinking right now is that we were here 2000 years ago so we justified or entitled to that or that.

12 hours ago, villa89 said:

Indeed. There wasn't a vegetable bad enough that we could throw Slippy at.

Ftfy

Bloomberg

Quote

President Joe Biden is considering a supplemental request of approximately $100 billion that would include defense assistance for Israel and Ukraine alongside border security funding and aid to nations in the Indo-Pacific, including Taiwan, according to people familiar with the matter.

They veto the resolution for a temporary ceasefire to allow aid in, and then given Israel a $99.999999bn (the rest for Ukraine) voucher to spend in the WeaponsAre.US store.

These guys are hilarious.

And quite frankly, shoulder the largest share of the blame in this entire saga.  Closely followed by our very own cretins.  Even more so than the Israeilis and Palestinians.

16 minutes ago, Xann said:

The nearer it was to the launch site, the more likely it would be hit accidentally.

We've seen the pics, the launchers come on racks, then you've got maybe ≥8 x chance of a potential misfire.

There's no safe conclusions to be made on blame either way from what we see?

What we know is they've both got explosives flying around.

Indeed.

But the lesson here is, if you tell the world that if Maggie doesn't move out, you're gonna kill maggie.  And you've killed lot's of maggies before.  Then you go to Maggie's house and smash her windows saying you're gonna kill the bitch tomorrow. 

Then tomorrow you pick up a gun and off you go to Maggie's house shouting bitch ain't moved, I'm gonna kill her... 

You're gonna look like a tit when you blame Fred (Maggie's husband), and carry on smashing other Maggie's windows.

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

No, apologies but I’m not clicking play on something with Morgan in it. Or Darren Grimes or that nutjob GBNews Vicar, Alan Sugar, Jim Davidson, Andrew Tate, Richard Madeley….

Fair enough. Shame though.

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about Piers Morgan.

He’s out to be loud and opinionated and controversial on any and every topic. It’s for clicks.

Personally, I couldn’t give a flying **** what Morgan pretends to think on any issue from Palestine to tea bags.

 

Not for Morgan though, watch it for the Egyptian guy.

He's quite frankly sensational.

I took a few days off, because I could feel myself getting very frustrated... and had to go cool off.  Apologies to anyone I offended.

My biggest issue with the whole debacle is the blatantly biased reporting.

Anyone watch Piers Morgan?  He is just one of hundreds of reporters who seem to have been "told" about how to approach any interview.

The only thing he does is shout "do you condemn October 7th". He's (as with the others) like a dog with a bone.  No one can say anything until the start by condemning the attacks.  It's an utter farce.  Even if they condemn the attacks, the reporters want the guest to condemn again at every point they make.

It's so biased, it's disgusting.  

Palestinian ambassador : "Do you condemn the attacks...?" non stop interrupting, and frankly embarrasing.

Israeli embassador isn't asked about warcrimes at all.  No difficult questions at all.

It's not what journalism is about - or at least it shouldn't be.

One guest has been able to completely school the prat.  It's quite an intriguing watch - if only to watch him be utterly out-manouvred by a thoroughly intelligent Egyptian comedian.  I thoroughly recommend a watch.  

Anything difficult : "It's actually not my job to answer your questions".

Go back and watch the interview with Ben Shapiro, and see how Piers "interviews" him for comparrison.

Also, this guy pretty much encompasses everything I have been trying to say, but much much more eloquently.  Please watch.

On 19/10/2023 at 19:56, magnkarl said:

I’m happy for your thoughts either way mate!

The Jewish community isn’t really big on replying to census questionnaires either way, as it has often led to the obvious throughout history, so the community in Birmingham is a lot larger than you think. It is often fairly mixed in with the local population where there isn’t a choice to go to Jewish specific schools and such.

I often try to talk to my daughter about not having her kids in the Jewish school as it often is targeted by various groups, but she thinks it’s a good idea. Generally the community isn’t all that big on indicating where our places of worship etc are either as we tend to not want to stand out. A lot of us don’t really go to synagogue to worship either, and prefer to do it at home. With the culture comes a lot of scepticism of people in power, internally including rabbis and the so called ‘council’.

PS: I don’t live in London, I’ll have you. I live 45 minutes outside

As much as I don't agree with Israeli policy,  I find this kind of behaviour absolutely disgusting.

It's these type of people that do so much damage and negatively affect the cause.

Utter imbeciles.

You can bet your bottom dollar that there will be Jewish people that do more for the palestinian cause than these **** will ever do.

2 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

There’s a point at which you’re just going to need to do some reading for yourself, but the “short term problem” is Netanyahu finding enough votes for his political survival, which he’s done by turning to the parties representing the religious right.

The ultra-orthodox / fundamentalist Jews are extremely conservative, highly nationalist and make up a disproportionately large (and growing) part of the settler movement.

They’re also considered a burden by the rest of Israel because they’re exempt from serving in the IDF and are paid by the state to study the Torah instead of working.

It’s highly unlikely any future leader will give them the same level as support as Netanyahu does. They’re being allowed to settle the West Bank for short term political convenience.

Strangely enough I completely missed your previous reply, even though I went back to look.

That’s why I was so confused.

Apolgies @fruitvilla

52 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

There’s a point at which you’re just going to need to do some reading for yourself, but the “short term problem” is Netanyahu finding enough votes for his political survival, which he’s done by turning to the parties representing the religious right.

The ultra-orthodox / fundamentalist Jews are extremely conservative, highly nationalist and make up a disproportionately large (and growing) part of the settler movement.

They’re also considered a burden by the rest of Israel because they’re exempt from serving in the IDF and are paid by the state to study the Torah instead of working.

It’s highly unlikely any future leader will give them the same level as support as Netanyahu does. They’re being allowed to settle the West Bank for short term political convenience.

Oh I’ve done plenty of reading.

it was my turn to play 20 questions.

This is not a short term problem.  Let’s not even pretend that it is.

23 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

See Panto's reply.

Pantos reply mentions nothing of religious right.

once again, what do you mean that the illegal settlements are a solution for ‘short-term’ problem?

10 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

The religious right.

You’ve lost me again.

what religious right is a short term problem?

And please l, no cryptic answers

1 minute ago, fruitvilla said:

I agree not a good example. People essentially invited into the country ... why would they not be afforded citizen benefits?

I think Israeli settlers in the West Bank is a political mistake to deal with with a short-term problem in Israel.
 

What? ‘A political mistake’?

Whats the short term problem in Israel?

8 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I think the European point you made is still wrong, though. I agree with you on the point re settlers and the forcing Palestinians out of their homes, but let’s not pretend the Israelis (even the settlers) are European colonisers, it’s more complex than that. They were an unwanted and subjugated people in Europe with origins in the region they have returned to, and some of them are of more recent local heritage anyway.

I do agree that a lot of what they have done has been an abuse of the rights of the people who had been living there for generations, not defending the illegal expansion of Israel.

Which point?

That the European Jews of many centuries, don’t have a right to go to the West Bank and evict a Palestinian of many centuries and take their home?

Im wrong there?

37 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Arguing for one side or the other in terms of people's rights won't get us anywhere.

I didn’t do this.

I made a point that the Zionist god-given claim to the land was absurd.  
 

International law has already made it clear that the settler movement is illegal.  Israel continue with impunity.  Netanyahu has clearly stated that he is not done  until the whole of Palestine is taken by Israel.

Britain's response - rather than to uphold the law, they change the definition of anti-semitism to include criticism of Israel foreign policy.

9 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

The black man in London might be a bad example there.

Do you think white people in America have a right to remain there? Do you think Anglo-Saxons have a right to live and remain in the UK?

The point being made (so far as I can see) is that you don’t need to be there first to have a claim to the land. At a certain point you have to accept that the new occupiers have been on the land long enough that they too have rights to it, even if they originally took the lands by force.

Thats obviously not the case for the Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank territories, but it is true for Israel proper.

Do you disagree with any of that? It’s sometimes hard to track what you’re arguing for given the numbers of posts you’re making.

The white people living in America should of course be allowed to live there. The anglo Saxons living here should be allowed to live there.  

The jewish people in Israel (proper) should be allowed to live there ( I have never suggested otherwise), and allowed to live there in peace, without fear of rockets or attacks.

Now ask @fruitvilla and @magnkarl what they think.

14 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

OK 'rights' are a social construct and meaningless beyond the social construct.

On a serious level, what was your point?! Other than say no one has rights?

1 minute ago, fruitvilla said:

You are buying into your own rhetoric here.

Do you actually have an argument?

You clearly don’t!

I was waiting for something genuinely interesting. Lol, and you hit me with that!

’rights are just a social construct’

wtf dude

So no one has rights??

So human rights (also a social construct) are worthless?  

 

2 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

OK 'rights' are a social construct and meaningless beyond the social construct.

That’s exactly what the Israeli say about human rights