Tumblerseven

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

 

If it quacks like a duck.

oh my god a picture. guys it looks like dresden it must be indiscriminate bombing. you cant be serious. please go read how airforce works and how bombing are decided.

9 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

IDF and Israel's right wing leadership deserves demonisation. They've prosecuted war with Hamas and Hezbollah before without the massive civilian loss of life before, they could do it again.

That said I understand that it needed a bigger reaction this time after what happened Oct 7th. I just don't think they chose the right action. They could've played this the proper way - go to the UN, present their proof, get backing from the majority to go into Gaza with UN soldiers, apprehend the people in charge, blow up tunnels, bunkers, clean the area of weapons and put a spotlight on Hamas backers. That way they'd get a much bigger 'ok' to actually go hard against Hamas wherever Hamas was hiding. The indiscriminate bombing is just a bit too 1945 or Russia for most people's liking.

I just find the whole trampy non-critical support for either side asinine. Both sides here have 70 years of furthering these issues, and whenever there was a deal or agreement presented the extremists from both sides shut it down to make money and further the conflict.

Oh the indiscriminate bombing another buzzword. You dont even know what indiscriminate bombing looks like. Read about Dresden jesus christ.
You understand that it makes no sense? right? you must know this.
 

Most densely populated region in the world a strip.
3 month indiscriminate bombing campaign.
30k dead?
its not indiscriminate bombing by any standard! stop using these buzzwords they dont make any sense.

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Out of curiosity I just scanned back through the last dozen or so pages. I’ve said the following:

‘it’s not just Netanyahu… those behind 7th October also need to be hunted down’

’undoubtedly letting them (Hamas) back in any significant way will eventually lead to the next cycle of violence’

’neither side should rely on just endlessly playing the victim card’

’why can’t the leaders just bomb each other’

’death cults in Israel..and Iran’

’greater (UN) intervention (in Gaza) could educate and coach some of the extremism out of the culture’

’anybody killing hostages… targeting civilians…should be hunted down’

 

I’m not sure that’s painting a conflict from a single point of view? I most definitely have been very critical of Netanyahu and the IDF. They are a sophisticated modern military and they’ve killed tens of thousands of civilians whilst restricting access to food and water. 

Personally, I struggle finding the innocent party between someone that kills teenagers at a music festival, and someone that kills refugees in tents.

 

 

you said this too first random page.

Quote

We’re at a horrible point here where it dawns that tens of thousands of lives may have been saved if Israel had assassinated western aid workers a few months earlier.

Quote

 

Specific to this conflict, I doubt the IDF threaten to execute IDF personnel that refuse to murder mothers and children.

 

I dont understand are we like pretending that people in here dont demonize israel? :DDD  Or your argument i said a few nice things so that means im fair? you cant be serious.

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's not "hilarious".  You're also right that some posters understandably, perhaps have seen all that horror and have come to the view that Israel is behaving worse than their terrorist opponents. If you count the bodies, it's hard to reach any other conclusion.  If you look at the nature of the acts committed it's less clear cut and both combatant sides look abhorrent.

No it is hilarious that you dont see how for 100 pages from october 7 people in here  is demonizing and going after israel in an unfair manner.
Those people who look at israel and hamas and dont see clear difference in their actions those people are unreasonable. If person cant see a difference between a bombing with intent to kill terrorists and a terrorist who rapes and beheads people thats... i dont even know what to say to that. 

28 minutes ago, blandy said:

I'm not sure that's really true. Without looking back, I guess there might be a tiny number of posts doing that, but generally no.

Imagine saying this when there is @chrisp65 and @Jareth in this forum who comment alot and who categorically paint this conflict from one point of view. I was calling this out months ago! Hilarious

55 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I think it depends on how wide you go. Israel flattened a hospital, a war crime, and as a consequence a child dies as they had no access to healthcare (or even food and water) - I'm blaming Israel for that war crime and the subsequent death. I would blame Hamas for Oct 7th, another war crime. Is there blame to be shared in either instance? If there is then that's not easy to say. On the overall conflict,  there is blame on many sides. 

If you use this concept of a war crime you should read about it more. The destruction of a hospital does not automatically constitute a war crime. 
You are cherry picking concepts and terms but you not really believe in them. If tomorrow ICJ would come out and say: no that X hospital bombing is not a war crime. You would disagree. I think you just using these buzzwords to strengthen your sentences.
What makes hospital bombing and 10 dead children inside it not a war crime can you answer that question?

On January 26, 2024, Donoghue delivered an interim ruling on South Africa v. Israel on behalf of the ICJ.

Quote

For an act to be classified as genocide, it is essential to demonstrate that the perpetrators had a deliberate and specific aim (dolus specialis) to physically destroy the group based on its real or perceived nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion. Intention to destroy the group's culture or intending to scatter the group does not suffice.^[3]

Genocidal intent - Wikipedia

You can keep screaming for hundreds of pages its genocide its genocide its just your feelings and narrative spinning nothing else just words who hold no weight.. To everyone who actually cares should go and read what south africa provided to support their accusations and prove dolus specialis. I think after that you might be very sceptical of the outcome of that case

51 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

 Ignoring questions you don't want to answer, denying actual proveable factual arguments, throwing around accusations of hypocrisy in a projecting manner due to the undeniable hypocrisy of your posts.

So didint i retracted my hypocrisy comment to you like two weeks ago? I cant believe that a grown man cries for two weeks about the statement i retracted two weeks ago its unbelievable.

On 24/10/2023 at 19:09, Tumblerseven said:

Okay i retract my comment about hypocrisy

You say i dont answer questions? but you cant name one? or what the problem name the question you want me so much to answer.

Few days ago i asked you do you want to ask me a question?

On 04/11/2023 at 16:09, Tumblerseven said:

@VILLAMARV you ok buddy? you wanted to ask me a question or something? 

On 04/11/2023 at 23:31, VILLAMARV said:

Of all the f***witted posts I've had to contend with over the years yours are without a doubt the most pathetic and disingenuous of the lot. Of course I don't want "to ask you a question or something" 

[mod edit  personal stuff removed]

I love how no person in here who i talked to will not step up and say no this guy is clearly trying to answer question or answering questions. You cant even do this but you will watch how people just blatantly lying about me. Actual no moral compas grown people acting like they are school bulies.

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

.You've suggested it as a solution to the conflict, the least undesireable one.

That's not quite the same as personally "wanting" it, but when you post that it is, in your opinion, the only viable option it's more than enough for people to post their own response as to why it's an unacceptable solution.

 

So thank you for confirming that this is a bad faith discussion and you people actually just bad faith.

You've suggested it as a solution to the conflict, the least undesireable one. no i actually didint.

My solution to the conflict is to free gaza which i told mutiple times. but you just ignore this because you bad faith.

Quote

I can’t, no. All 3 of those are totally unacceptable. The first 2 are utterly inhumane, fail to demonstrate any respect for human life or human rights and are appalling.

Quote

But realistically there is no other option you have to acknowledge that. You must agree that there are certain situations where humane and peaceful options doesn't exist.

We talking here about hypothetical scenario i gave you! are you like serious right now?

18 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Sure, but if we keep losing there needs to be a squad cleansing. 

I never said i want or it needs to be ethnic cleansing first of all.

I am actually shocked by some of the people's English language comprehension in here. This is insane either this is completely bad faith and you guys running with group thinking because you want to fit in or you actually like have some mental disabilities. People in here cant even differentiate between description explanation and advocation. jesus christ.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

No. Quite the opposite.

 

1. Right to Exist: This means that a country is recognized and respected by the international community, and it has the legal and diplomatic standing to exist as a sovereign state. Other countries acknowledge its existence and sovereignty, and it is typically a member of the United Nations or has diplomatic relations with other nations.

2. Inherent Right to Exist: This concept goes a step further and suggests that the country's existence is seen as a fundamental and natural aspect, similar to the way we recognize the basic rights of individuals. In this context, the country's right to exist is considered an intrinsic and fundamental principle, and its territorial integrity is protected not only because it is acknowledged by others but because it is a basic and natural state of affairs.

So, when we say a country has the "right to exist" but doesn't have the "inherent right to exist," we mean that the country is recognized and respected by the international community, but its existence may not be viewed as an inherent and fundamental principle in the same way that, for example, the inherent rights of individuals are recognized. The distinction may imply that the country's existence relies on external recognition and acceptance rather than being seen as a fundamental and natural aspect of the international order.

So to say that countries doesnt have an inherent right to exist is not an evil statement. I dont appreciate that in this forum we are pretending that its an evil statement and demonize people.

So i dont cry and im not against the soviet union collapsing. If you think that countries have inherent right to exist that should mean that you are against the soviet union collapsing. 

And by this logic its territorial integrity is protected not only because it is acknowledged by others but because it is a basic and natural state of affairs. Your thinking should be that israel got its lands in 1948 illegally and if it got its land illegally what follows..

22 hours ago, Tumblerseven said:

Yah i agree i dont think Palestinians deserve death or bombed hospitals or schools or bombs on safe passages. 

1 hour ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Right up Tumbler street!

Please stop fantasizing about my "war crimes" in your sleep ok?  That person who talked about nukes is crazy its insanity. He should be fired from position of power.

Oh and they did already but no one mentions it because they are pushing the narrative.

Israel minister suspended after calling nuking Gaza an option – POLITICO

Quote

Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu was suspended indefinitely after he said in an interview that dropping a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip was “one of the possibilities,” the government announced on Sunday.

@VILLAMARV so you clearly have no idea room temperature iq engagement.

So lets ask an AI a higher intelligence creature than VILLAMARV 

Question: If i say that population cleansing is not inherently a bad thing. With that first statement do i say that its a good thing?

Explanation for slow people: 

No, saying that "population cleansing is not inherently a bad thing" does not mean that you are saying it is a good thing. It is crucial to understand the context and the nuances of the statement. By saying that it is "not inherently a bad thing," you are acknowledging that there might be varying perspectives or contexts in which people may discuss the topic.

However, it's essential to emphasize that population cleansing, in its common understanding, involves the forced removal or elimination of people from a particular ethnic or racial group, often involving violence and human rights abuses. It is widely considered a grave violation of human rights and international law, and it is generally viewed negatively in the international community.

If you wish to express a positive opinion about something, you would need to use more explicit and affirmative language to convey that viewpoint.

2 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

Wait you dont know? Then why attack me and then make fun of me?

I asked you what you understood what is the message?

@VILLAMARV can you tell my what you understood from my statement.

Quote

So i dont think that population cleansing is inherently a bad thing.

What message did i communicate to you when i said this?

9 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

 agrees with ethnic cleansing is not where I expected to be.

8 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

but yeah, I’ll go and paint a wall for an hour, wouldn’t want to be seen as the guy that spoiled the debate on ethnic cleansing

On 03/11/2023 at 11:29, chrisp65 said:

I stole my house 75 years ago and the dumb **** I stole it off, well I killed him, but his relatives still sit in next door’s garden.

Hardly my problem is it.

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

A good reply. The difficulty I have is that you wrote that no country has an inherent right to exist. You wrote that cleansing a country of its people was acceptable to you under the circumstances, you wrote that failed countries don’t deserve to exist if they fail. All of that looks awfully like advocating for Palestine to cease to exist, as a way out of the current terrible situation. Or survival of the fittest, in short.

I completely disagree with you, but I think I can perhaps understand why someone with connections to Israel might hold those views after 7 Oct.

Didint you agree that countries dont have inherent right to exist? i think you did.

Do you understand that cleansing population is natural process of creation of the country? You take similar population and you kick out unsimilar population and you create a country. That process was done for thousands of years. Its natural country creation process. its not inherently bad. And sometimes its necessary. I could explain that but you refused to engage with hypotheticals because it looks bad.

I wrote that failed countries dont deserve to exist. Oh man im such a bad guy that i believe that country who cant govern itself and cant protect its borders and people and cant take care of its people should not exist. "Very VERY  controversial"

I think letting people endlessly suffer in a failed state is more cruel than just changing a name of country electing different government implementing better systems and trying again so people can prosper and live normally. 

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

It may be a language thing, but you do appear to be saying exactly that which you call “a delusion”.

In that comment im describing the reality of how external pressures work i think i can do that without being accused of advocating for it.

Quote

So what happenes to a country or a system who cant fight off external pressures? they vanish that is the harsh reality.

What happens to a worker who cant compete or keep up with the job he gets fired! What happens to the restaurant that cant compete or keep up with the market it get shut down. Does world owe that worker a job and that restaurant a business? NO

If i describe you breathing it doesnt mean im advocating for it. right?

This is my second language and im shocked that you people actually cant see the difference between describing(explaining) and advocating.

1 minute ago, Mr_Dogg said:

If it is misinterpreted, it's because your posting style is rambling and confusing.

My statement: So what happenes to a country or a system who cant fight off external pressures? they vanish that is the harsh reality.

Your delusion: You are advocating survival of the fittest but for countries.

Just stop ok

7 hours ago, Tumblerseven said:

I do believe that israel and palestine have the right to exist.

This is some crazy stuff happening where people like @Mr_Dogg and @Chindie and others purposefully trying to misunderstand me and ignore what i am actually saying and just trying to demonize me and paint me like an evil person. I dont think thats acceptable. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. :)

12 minutes ago, meregreen said:

 Both the Ottomans and latterly the British would hardly have allowed that to happen.

So what happenes to a country or a system who cant fight off external pressures? they vanish that is the harsh reality.

What happens to a worker who cant compete or keep up with the job he gets fired! What happens to the restaurant that cant compete or keep up with the market it get shut down. Does world owe that worker a job and that restaurant a business? NO  

I dont understand why some people think that world owes Palestinians a Palestine. If they cant build it if they cant fight off external world pressures its their problem. World doesnt owe them a country.

4 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Are you going to answer my question - on what basis do you think Israel has a the right to exist in those lands?

They had the right to exist in the 1948 because they came into a free land with some Palestinian villagers and decided to build a country over there.

I dont believe in inherent right or ownership to the land so if you will try to argue that Palestinian villagers had a land in there and they lived in there. I dont care they should have built a country.

17 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

I'm implying nothing of the sort because I've not even said Israel has no right to exist.

The question you asked was this: 

The key part is "in those lands".  Most of that land, even excluding the Gaza and the West Bank, belonged to Palestinians and was unfairly taken away from them.  I do not believe Israel ever had a right to be given, or to take those lands. I don't support the right of any people or country to exist in land that has been stolen from other people.     

Do you think they have a right to those lands? If yes, on what basis?

Second, not believing in Israel's right to exist in those lands does not entail that I think Israel has no right to exist anywhere. From what I've read, other locations were considered by the Zionist movement for a Jewish homeland.  If land anywhere, including Palestine, had been acquired fairly and without prejudice to set up a Jewish Homeland  then they would have every right to exist there.      

Third, not having the right to be there also does not entail a belief that the Jewish population should now be eradicated from that land.   Just that they are there without right.

Is that simple enough for you?  

 

I cant explain or teach what implications are or that language and words have actual meaning. Im not playing that game and im not wasting my time with that.

my question: 2023 does israel have the right to exist in those lands?Not including west bank gazas. no why/yes why?

your answer: no I don't believe Israel has the right to exist in those lands because the bulk of that land was unfairly/illegally taken from the indigenous population, who were then forcibly displaced. 

This is very clear answer this implicates one state solution of Palestine and you cant disassociate from the outcomes of it.

25 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Why are you shouting again?  As I said I am fully aware some ill-informed people will say my stance is anti-Semitic and/or anti-Zionist and that's why a lot of people who agree with me are afraid to express such views.  I've already explained they are neither, so what is your issue ?  Why would anyone be able to call it evil?

I believe the Palestinians have the right to fight occupation but not by any means necessary such as committing war crimes. 

I can't possibly say whether the October 7th attack was motivated by fighting the occupation or pushed by Iran or whoever to stir up trouble. I don't have that knowledge.  You will have to ask Hamas what their motivation was.  

I've never called Hamas freedom fighters.  Some of the oppressed might very well see them as such but I don't.  Hamas are too extreme in their methods to be called such.       

I don't think the October 7th attacks on civilians were justified or proportionate, illegal occupation or not.  Fighting the occupation should not include targeting civilians.   

I think people would call your stance evil because when you say that Israel has no right to exist you are implying bad stuff. You can have a stance but you dont get to choose the effects or outcomes of that stance.

example: If i say i want to eat pork but i am against pig being killed its nonsensical. I am literally the reason why pig gets killed. I dont get to choose to eat pork and then disassociate from the outcome pig being killed.

So by saying that Israel has no right to exist you implying one state solution aka from the river to the sea Palestine. Any person with two braincells understands what would follow in one state solution with Palestinians controlling their lands and country. Holocaust of jews. So that is the outcome of your position you dont get to choose to disassociate from the outcome.