Starmer's vision quest

[multitool]

You're comrade O'Brien AICMFP.

No idea what that means.

 

[winjim]

I think he's going to dispute the death toll of civilians.

He might be right. It might be slightly fewer. But it's pretty irrelevant to the point I am making, which is that if you have a terrorist-led governing power that launches an unbelievably brutal attack killing circa 1000 civilians, taking hostages, parading the raped and brutalised corpses for all to see, you can't, as a credible politician, immediately aggress the attacked people with accusations of what they might do.

It's relevant because it was artificially inflated and used as propaganda to justify six months of relentless genocidal destruction. The fact that you are quoting it means it has to some extent succeeded. Same with the debunked allegations of mass rape and beheading of babies.

The sensible thing to have done would be to find out the facts first and consider whether there might have been some biases at work in the reporting of the incident, before giving Israel the green light to raze Gaza.

 

[C R]

No idea what that means.

O'Brien

 

[multitool]

O'Brien

Oh. A personal attack. I see.

 

[multitool]

It's relevant because it was artificially inflated and used as propaganda to justify six months of relentless genocidal destruction. The fact that you are quoting it means it has to some extent succeeded. Same with the debunked allegations of mass rape and beheading of babies.

The sensible thing to have done would be to find out the facts first and consider whether there might have been some biases at work in the reporting of the incident, before giving Israel the green light to raze Gaza.

I note you've yet to tell us what the true death toll is, and how you can be sure of it.

Also, nobody gave the Israelis the "green light" to raze Gaza. It did give Israel the justification to respond. Denying the right to self-defence opens a huge can of worms.

Of course, we are now horrified by Israel's response. Including Starmer.

 

[BoldonLad]

It's relevant because it was artificially inflated and used as propaganda to justify six months of relentless genocidal destruction. The fact that you are quoting it means it has to some extent succeeded. Same with the debunked allegations of mass rape and beheading of babies.

The sensible thing to have done would be to find out the facts first and consider whether there might have been some biases at work in the reporting of the incident, before giving Israel the green light to raze Gaza.

Is there an acceptable number of murdered civilians in a terrorist attack then?

Is there an acceptable number of rapes in a terrorist attack then?

Did any any Country give such a "green light"?, if yes, would you care to quote a source?

 

[winjim]

Is there an acceptable number of murdered civilians in a terrorist attack then?

Not the point I was making and I'm not getting drawn in.

Is there an acceptable number of rapes in a terrorist attack then?

Not the point I was making and I'm not getting drawn in.

Did any any Country give such a "green light"?, if yes, would you care to quote a source?

Any country, its leader or potential leader who uncritically repeated the now debunked claims or immediately jumped to the cliched insistence of Israel's right to self defence or right to exist. Particularly anybody arming them.


View: https://twitter.com/jairamraj1988/status/1773894275069362415?t=svk69m3V45sNpPOvyRTJxg&s=19



View: https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1774513177738215491?t=w3QLM0KqjMHB-6olaXATsw&s=19

 

[winjim]

I note you've yet to tell us what the true death toll is, and how you can be sure of it.

Also, nobody gave the Israelis the "green light" to raze Gaza. It did give Israel the justification to respond. Denying the right to self-defence opens a huge can of worms.

Of course, we are now horrified by Israel's response. Including Starmer.

Yeah we done a bit of a whoopsie, silly us.

 

[C R]

Oh. A personal attack. I see.

 

[multitool]

Any country, its leader or potential leader who uncritically repeated the now debunked claims or immediately jumped to the cliched insistence of Israel's right to self defence or right to exist.

You really haven't thought this through.

If Israel has no right to self defence them nor does any sovereign state. Not us, not the US, definitely not new countries like Ukraine, Italy or Kosovo.

As for 'right to exist'...ditto. Plus it exists.

 

[multitool]

View attachment 5731

Really? Where have I attacked you?

 

[theclaud]

You really haven't thought this through.

If Israel has no right to self defence them nor does any sovereign state. Not us, not the US, definitely not new countries like Ukraine, Italy or Kosovo.

As for 'right to exist'...ditto. Plus it exists.

An occupying state does not have a right to defend itself against the occupied.

 

[winjim]

You really haven't thought this through.

If Israel has no right to self defence them nor does any sovereign state. Not us, not the US, definitely not new countries like Ukraine, Italy or Kosovo.

As for 'right to exist'...ditto. Plus it exists.

Oh I have thought it through. But there's no point explaining because you'll just automatically refute anything I have to say.

(Plus I'm ill so I not think or English good)

 

[winjim]

An occupying state does not have a right to defend itself against the occupied.

States don't have rights. People have rights.

 

[multitool]

An occupying state does not have a right to defend itself against the occupied.

A bit too glib, that one.

Would be reasonable if the attacks had been against the military, but they weren't. It was an attack purely aimed at civilians. Pop back and tell me how the massacre of 1000 civilians (or 900, or 800, makes no difference) sits within international law.

I mean, don't think that I don't realise you are hoping to manoeuvre me into a position where I am defending Israeli occupation and atrocities. I'm not quite that thick, TC