Massage Adagio
The Porn Dude

Israel at war

Previous Thread Next Thread
S

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,934
11,817
113
Toronto
Valcazar said:
So what risk profile is sufficient to stop?
Click to expand...
That is for whomever is contemplating an action to decide for themselves. How much risk are they willing to take?

Do you think that Hamas made a good decision on Oct. 7? Mind you, the risk they themselves took was insignificant compared to the risk they imposed on Gaza and its' citizens.

Valcazar said:
But you said that Hamas surrendering isn't enough to stop, the risk has to be zero, didn't you?
Click to expand...
No. I NEVER said anything about no risk. That's virtually impossible. Just about everything we do in this world comes with some risk

Valcazar said:
I completely agree Hamas should surrender, but if Hamas surrendering isn't sufficient reason to stop, how does that save Palestinian lives?
Click to expand...
Actually, I was trying to say that a Hamas surrender (and returning the hostages) IS enough to stop the current fighting.

In case I misunderstood you and you are saying that it's not a 100% solution, that's like the anti-environmentalists saying we shouldn't try to improve the environment because some other countries won't participate. Or the gun lovers saying there's no sense making gun laws stricter because there will still be gun deaths. It will still be a huge improvement on the status quo.

As to your question, it's a simple premise. Many Palestinians are dying every single day. A Hamas surrender immediately stops that. Nothing else stops the Israeli onslaught as quickly. That's how Palestinian lives get saved. And the sooner the fighting stops, the more lives will be saved.

Valcazar said:
OK.
This sounds like a different requirement than you were arguing earlier.
This is "Hamas surrenders and Israel stops bombing".
Which is a good start./QUOTE]
Apologies if my statements weren't phrased properly.

Valcazar said:
It doesn't really answer any of the long term issues (i.e. - what happens next) but at least it isn't "Israel bombs until it feels like stopping".
Click to expand...
The last part referred to "as long as Hamas keeps fighting instead of surrendering".

The long term is much more complicated. That's been at the crux of every Israeli/Arab/Palestinian/Hamas/PLO negotiation. Nobody's figured it out yet, and I won't pretend to be smarter or more qualified than they. I think that stopping the current killing is, as you say, a good start. Whenever it happens it would, or should, turn down the dial greatly on the tensions we are now witnessing. And the sooner the better. Which, again, is the reason I keep calling for a Hamas surrender. There is no faster solution.
Click to expand...
 
S

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,934
11,817
113
Toronto
Frankfooter said:
Israel is killing as many Palestinians as they think they can get away with.
Even now they have pushed Biden as far as they can.
If they killed more even Biden would abandon them.
Click to expand...
For public consumption.

Don't kid yourself, the US needs Israel almost as much as Israel need them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xmontrealer
S

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,934
11,817
113
Toronto
Frankfooter said:
Hamas is still there.
Click to expand...
And Israel is Hamas' cancer eating away at them bit by bit, relentlessly.

Frankfooter said:
Israel and zionism now means genocide.
The world hates zionists.

And next week Israel goes on trial for genocide.
After that they get banned from the UN and sanctions start.

It'll be the end of zionism.
Click to expand...
And even though you know that nobody is listening to you, you keep yelling wolf. Sad and pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Conil
S

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,934
11,817
113
Toronto
Kautilya said:
Yes, and the only ones fighting for survival are the Palestinians.
Click to expand...
Yet their population continues to grow. The only thing that impedes it is when they keep starting wars.

Kautilya said:
Unfortunately, for you, Apartheid has nothing to do with citizenship.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with citizenship. I posted the history of apartheid in S. Africa. Black and brown citizens were denied some of the rights that white citizens had and S. Africa called that policy apartheid. The international community can come up with a different name for the practice of not bestowing full rights to foreigners.
And that name could apply to every single country in the world.

Your biased and discriminatory semantics are a joke. The goalposts were moved specifically for the purpose of demonizing Israel.

You have still not given me the list of countries that give voting rights to people who are not citizens. And if there are no names on that list be honourable enough to admit that you want Israel to do what no other country does. This is a perfect example of setting higher standards for Israel than for other countries. That's called discrimination. Actually that would be imposing apartheid upon the State of Israel. They are being treated differently than every other country.

So please provide that list that frank is too cowardly to respond you. I consider you more honest than frank, but that's still an extremely low bar to exceed.
 
S

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,934
11,817
113
Toronto
Kautilya said:
Apartheid has nothing to do with just voting rights.
Click to expand...
But the S. Africans took away the blacks' right to vote. The ability, or lack thereof, is inextricably linked to the policy of apartheid. Actually it's probably the most important right that got taken away.

Kautilya said:
So there is no reason to give you a list of countries that give voting rights to non-citizens, as that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Once again, a crucial point I am making, which you claim is irrelevant and ignore, is because you know I have displayed your biased bullshit and you have no counter argument.

You couldn't give a list even if you tried, because there is no such list. Not one country confers a vote, or full rights (voting was just one example of that) to non-citizens/foreigners. By admitting that there is not one other country in the world that confers full rights of citizens to non-citizens, yet you expect Israel to, proves that you have a hypocritical set of standards. To you, Israel must do things that you do not ask of other countries. More exposed hypocrisy and prejudice for you to chew on.

Kautilya said:
And it also has nothing to do with citizenship per international law.
Click to expand...
As mentioned the goalposts were moved strictly for the purposes of demonizing Israel. Call it something else, but it is not apartheid as defined by the S. African governments of that time. Their policy had nothing to with foreigners.

Kautilya said:
How you and a few other Zionists and racists, define Apartheid, in an attempt to absolve Israel, is irrelevant. It is you vs The UN, Amnesty, The African National Congress and many other human rights organizations. Most importantly, it is your definition vs international law. Guess who has more credibility?
Click to expand...
How you define apartheid is an attempt to indict Israel and is irrelevant. All the entities you mentioned have no credibility when discussing Israel. They have as much neutrality as you, which is zilch. You just keep pointing out how much anti-Semitism there is in the world.
 
K

Klatuu

Well-known member
Dec 31, 2022
7,261
4,581
113
shack said:
But the S. Africans took away the blacks' right to vote. The ability, or lack thereof, is inextricably linked to the policy of apartheid. Actually it's probably the most important right that got taken away.


Once again, a crucial point I am making, which you claim is irrelevant and ignore, is because you know I have displayed your biased bullshit and you have no counter argument.

You couldn't give a list even if you tried, because there is no such list. Not one country confers a vote, or full rights (voting was just one example of that) to non-citizens/foreigners. By admitting that there is not one other country in the world that confers full rights of citizens to non-citizens, yet you expect Israel to, proves that you have a hypocritical set of standards. To you, Israel must do things that you do not ask of other countries. More exposed hypocrisy and prejudice for you to chew on.

As mentioned the goalposts were moved strictly for the purposes of demonizing Israel. Call it something else, but it is not apartheid as defined by the S. African governments of that time. Their policy had nothing to with foreigners.

How you define apartheid is an attempt to indict Israel and is irrelevant. All the entities you mentioned have no credibility when discussing Israel. They have as much neutrality as you, which is zilch. You just keep pointing out how much anti-Semitism there is in the world.
Click to expand...
Adolescent
 
  • Wow
Reactions: mandrill
mandrill

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
82,912
115,768
113
Kautilya said:
Then he should have no issues debating it, because he has indisputable proof. But the thing is there is no proof out there, and any subsequent cross questioning of this nonsensical narrative, that no one believes, will not stand up to scrutiny and Eylon will be left red-faced. Just as he was on fucking Piers Morgan, of all places, when Piers asked him "How many of the dead are Hamas?", in response to Eylon saying, the majority of the dead in Gaza were Hamas. Eylon's response? "Many". 😂
Click to expand...
Kauty, I posted probably 40 different interviews and examples with survivors or eye witnesses of 7 October in that other thread.

You and Frankie and Klatty still don't accept it happened. You're in a cult.

If Eylon debated that asstwat, the asstwat would just laugh and state that "there's no proof of 7 October" and people like you would nod your heads and say "That's right. No proof at all."

So why would Eylon bother to do it??... The proof is out there and ample. The "River to the Sea Cult" - like you and your buddies - just ignores the proof.

Kautilya said:
Apartheid has nothing to do with just voting rights. So there is no reason to give you a list of countries that give voting rights to non-citizens, as that is irrelevant.

And it also has nothing to do with citizenship per international law.

How you and a few other Zionists and racists, define Apartheid, in an attempt to absolve Israel, is irrelevant. It is you vs The UN, Amnesty, The African National Congress and many other human rights organizations. Most importantly, it is your definition vs international law. Guess who has more credibility?
Click to expand...
Seriously, What a joke you are!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Conil and Kautilya
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom