Gaza War, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There could be no civilian casualties in Gaza, and the same people would still be calling for a ceasefire. Destroying Israel is the goal.

Utter bullshit. I have yet to encounter a single person, online or in everyday life, who has any interest in bridling Israel’s response as it relates to Hamas. Not a single person.

The objections I’ve heard have only to do with innocent, non-combatant civilians being indiscriminately
killed, by U.S. weapons systems, no less.

DP. Really? I have encountered several people who think Israel should not have responded militarily.

If anyone argues inaction after the Hamas attacks, I wouldn’t give them the time of day. However, the collateral destruction in the response is what’s up for grabs in the debate.

The collateral damage is 100% on Hamas.

Not when the US pays for the weapons and an Israeli soldier pulls the trigger.

What if an Israeli soldier uses an Israeli weapon?

Their shells and bullets are provided by uncle sam.

For an Israeli-made rifle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There could be no civilian casualties in Gaza, and the same people would still be calling for a ceasefire. Destroying Israel is the goal.

Utter bullshit. I have yet to encounter a single person, online or in everyday life, who has any interest in bridling Israel’s response as it relates to Hamas. Not a single person.

The objections I’ve heard have only to do with innocent, non-combatant civilians being indiscriminately
killed, by U.S. weapons systems, no less.

DP. Really? I have encountered several people who think Israel should not have responded militarily.

If anyone argues inaction after the Hamas attacks, I wouldn’t give them the time of day. However, the collateral destruction in the response is what’s up for grabs in the debate.

The collateral damage is 100% on Hamas.

How does that work in your mind?

If someone bumps into you in the grocery store, do you feel you then have the right to beat them up in the store? And then you also have the right to get in your car and drive to their house, where you have the right to beat up everyone in their family and their neighbors, too? Bonus points for beating children and infants, and especially women seeking shelter in their neighborhood church?

But all of that is the responsibility of the person who bumped into you in the store? You have no responsibility?

dp. It is not easy to fight a terrorist group that hides behind women and children. There really is something deeply off about Hamas.

The power imbalance requires them to either be cowardly bastards and have a chance, no matter how exceedingly small, of surviving the fight, or just running headfirst into a Lockheed Martin / General Dynamics / Applied Aeronautics avalanche.

I’d like to think most people wouldn’t choose the former, but let’s be serious. Most combatants will do whatever is necessary to extend the life meter …

What Hamas is doing is a War Crime.

Hamas is despicable. Nobody should be pro-Hamas, and if they are, I don’t consider their views relevant.

But there are international bodies that monitor conflicts (like the U.N.) and the most prolific violator of international law (and the law of armed conflict) continues to be Israel and it’s not really worth identifying second place on that list because it’s a vastly distant second place.

No, I don't think so. UN is extremely biased against Israel, not to mention obsessed with the country. Israel explains its targeting. When an opposing entity hides its militants behind womenand children and dresses in civilian clothes, that is a war crime.

You don’t think so. The U.N. thinks something diametrically opposite of what you ugh think.

Who should observers believe?

You? Biased toward Israel, incapable of finding fault in anything Israel does.

Or the U.N., THE international body that was formed to monitor global interests, which you thought was wonderful in 1947 .., but now, it’s extremely biased against Israel, and obsessed with Israel, too?

You’re incapable of seeing clearly when it comes to Israel. Your bias is the issue here, not the U.N.

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There could be no civilian casualties in Gaza, and the same people would still be calling for a ceasefire. Destroying Israel is the goal.

Utter bullshit. I have yet to encounter a single person, online or in everyday life, who has any interest in bridling Israel’s response as it relates to Hamas. Not a single person.

The objections I’ve heard have only to do with innocent, non-combatant civilians being indiscriminately
killed, by U.S. weapons systems, no less.

DP. Really? I have encountered several people who think Israel should not have responded militarily.

If anyone argues inaction after the Hamas attacks, I wouldn’t give them the time of day. However, the collateral destruction in the response is what’s up for grabs in the debate.

The collateral damage is 100% on Hamas.

How does that work in your mind?

If someone bumps into you in the grocery store, do you feel you then have the right to beat them up in the store? And then you also have the right to get in your car and drive to their house, where you have the right to beat up everyone in their family and their neighbors, too? Bonus points for beating children and infants, and especially women seeking shelter in their neighborhood church?

But all of that is the responsibility of the person who bumped into you in the store? You have no responsibility?

dp. It is not easy to fight a terrorist group that hides behind women and children. There really is something deeply off about Hamas.

The power imbalance requires them to either be cowardly bastards and have a chance, no matter how exceedingly small, of surviving the fight, or just running headfirst into a Lockheed Martin / General Dynamics / Applied Aeronautics avalanche.

I’d like to think most people wouldn’t choose the former, but let’s be serious. Most combatants will do whatever is necessary to extend the life meter …

What Hamas is doing is a War Crime.

Hamas is despicable. Nobody should be pro-Hamas, and if they are, I don’t consider their views relevant.

But there are international bodies that monitor conflicts (like the U.N.) and the most prolific violator of international law (and the law of armed conflict) continues to be Israel and it’s not really worth identifying second place on that list because it’s a vastly distant second place.

No, I don't think so. UN is extremely biased against Israel, not to mention obsessed with the country. Israel explains its targeting. When an opposing entity hides its militants behind womenand children and dresses in civilian clothes, that is a war crime.

You don’t think so. The U.N. thinks something diametrically opposite of what you ugh think.

Who should observers believe?

You? Biased toward Israel, incapable of finding fault in anything Israel does.

Or the U.N., THE international body that was formed to monitor global interests, which you thought was wonderful in 1947 .., but now, it’s extremely biased against Israel, and obsessed with Israel, too?

You’re incapable of seeing clearly when it comes to Israel. Your bias is the issue here, not the U.N.

Nope.

2022 UN resolutions against Russia -1
2022 UN resolutions against Israel - 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There could be no civilian casualties in Gaza, and the same people would still be calling for a ceasefire. Destroying Israel is the goal.

Utter bullshit. I have yet to encounter a single person, online or in everyday life, who has any interest in bridling Israel’s response as it relates to Hamas. Not a single person.

The objections I’ve heard have only to do with innocent, non-combatant civilians being indiscriminately
killed, by U.S. weapons systems, no less.

DP. Really? I have encountered several people who think Israel should not have responded militarily.

If anyone argues inaction after the Hamas attacks, I wouldn’t give them the time of day. However, the collateral destruction in the response is what’s up for grabs in the debate.

The collateral damage is 100% on Hamas.

How does that work in your mind?

If someone bumps into you in the grocery store, do you feel you then have the right to beat them up in the store? And then you also have the right to get in your car and drive to their house, where you have the right to beat up everyone in their family and their neighbors, too? Bonus points for beating children and infants, and especially women seeking shelter in their neighborhood church?

But all of that is the responsibility of the person who bumped into you in the store? You have no responsibility?

dp. It is not easy to fight a terrorist group that hides behind women and children. There really is something deeply off about Hamas.

The power imbalance requires them to either be cowardly bastards and have a chance, no matter how exceedingly small, of surviving the fight, or just running headfirst into a Lockheed Martin / General Dynamics / Applied Aeronautics avalanche.

I’d like to think most people wouldn’t choose the former, but let’s be serious. Most combatants will do whatever is necessary to extend the life meter …

What Hamas is doing is a War Crime.

Hamas is despicable. Nobody should be pro-Hamas, and if they are, I don’t consider their views relevant.

But there are international bodies that monitor conflicts (like the U.N.) and the most prolific violator of international law (and the law of armed conflict) continues to be Israel and it’s not really worth identifying second place on that list because it’s a vastly distant second place.

No, I don't think so. UN is extremely biased against Israel, not to mention obsessed with the country. Israel explains its targeting. When an opposing entity hides its militants behind womenand children and dresses in civilian clothes, that is a war crime.

You don’t think so. The U.N. thinks something diametrically opposite of what you ugh think.

Who should observers believe?

You? Biased toward Israel, incapable of finding fault in anything Israel does.

Or the U.N., THE international body that was formed to monitor global interests, which you thought was wonderful in 1947 .., but now, it’s extremely biased against Israel, and obsessed with Israel, too?

You’re incapable of seeing clearly when it comes to Israel. Your bias is the issue here, not the U.N.

Nope.

Oh. It’s the “cuz I say so” position.

Why didn’t you just start off with “La La La La La, I can’t hear you” and save some time?

[Anonymous]

Here's the moralest army in the world mocking Palestinian detainees, smoking a probably-stolen hookah and running their mouth about having sex on the beach in Gaza.

Your mother must be so proud.

[/twitter]https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1736460904743457058[twitter]

[Anonymous]

Here's the moralest army in the world mocking Palestinian detainees, smoking a probably-stolen hookah and running their mouth about having sex on the beach in Gaza.

Your mother must be so proud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the moralest army in the world mocking Palestinian detainees, smoking a probably-stolen hookah and running their mouth about having sex on the beach in Gaza.

Your mother must be so proud.

[/twitter]https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1736460904743457058[twitter]

Omg so proportional to the rapes, maiming, murdering and abducting of Israelis .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There could be no civilian casualties in Gaza, and the same people would still be calling for a ceasefire. Destroying Israel is the goal.

Utter bullshit. I have yet to encounter a single person, online or in everyday life, who has any interest in bridling Israel’s response as it relates to Hamas. Not a single person.

The objections I’ve heard have only to do with innocent, non-combatant civilians being indiscriminately
killed, by U.S. weapons systems, no less.

DP. Really? I have encountered several people who think Israel should not have responded militarily.

If anyone argues inaction after the Hamas attacks, I wouldn’t give them the time of day. However, the collateral destruction in the response is what’s up for grabs in the debate.

The collateral damage is 100% on Hamas.

Not when the US pays for the weapons and an Israeli soldier pulls the trigger.

What if an Israeli soldier uses an Israeli weapon?

Their shells and bullets are provided by uncle sam.

Along with Germany, Italy, et cetera.

Meanwhile, Hamas shells, bullets, rockets and other weapons are provided by Iran, Russia and others.

Did you have some kind of a point here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the moralest army in the world mocking Palestinian detainees, smoking a probably-stolen hookah and running their mouth about having sex on the beach in Gaza.

Your mother must be so proud.

[/twitter]https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1736460904743457058[twitter]

Why do you assume the hookah is "probably stolen?" Don't you know there are hookah manufacturers, hookah shops and hookah bars all over Israel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the moralest army in the world mocking Palestinian detainees, smoking a probably-stolen hookah and running their mouth about having sex on the beach in Gaza.

Your mother must be so proud.

[/twitter]https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1736460904743457058[twitter]

Why do you assume the hookah is "probably stolen?" Don't you know there are hookah manufacturers, hookah shops and hookah bars all over Israel?

You're saying soldiers carry a hookah with them on raids at all times?

What else is in their kit?

Giant menorahs they've been sporting all over Gaza?

Tell us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the moralest army in the world mocking Palestinian detainees, smoking a probably-stolen hookah and running their mouth about having sex on the beach in Gaza.

Your mother must be so proud.

[/twitter]https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1736460904743457058[twitter]

Why do you assume the hookah is "probably stolen?" Don't you know there are hookah manufacturers, hookah shops and hookah bars all over Israel?

Wow if you're this upset about talking about consensual sex, you must be very upset about rape.

Wait - what's that? Not very upset about brutal rape?

Huh!

Stolen hookah - jesus christ. Get some perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the moralest army in the world mocking Palestinian detainees, smoking a probably-stolen hookah and running their mouth about having sex on the beach in Gaza.

Your mother must be so proud.

[/twitter]https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1736460904743457058[twitter]

Why do you assume the hookah is "probably stolen?" Don't you know there are hookah manufacturers, hookah shops and hookah bars all over Israel?

Wow if you're this upset about talking about consensual sex, you must be very upset about rape.

Wait - what's that? Not very upset about brutal rape?

Huh!

Stolen hookah - jesus christ. Get some perspective.

I dunno. Humiliating detainees on video? Hmmm.

[Anonymous]

A month ago IDF killed the wife and young children of Wael Al-Dahdouh, Al-Jazeera's chief in Gaza.

Now they are targeting him.

They really hate reporters that aren't on IDF press tours, don't they.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the moralest army in the world mocking Palestinian detainees, smoking a probably-stolen hookah and running their mouth about having sex on the beach in Gaza.

Your mother must be so proud.

[/twitter]https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/1736460904743457058[twitter]

Why do you assume the hookah is "probably stolen?" Don't you know there are hookah manufacturers, hookah shops and hookah bars all over Israel?

Wow if you're this upset about talking about consensual sex, you must be very upset about rape.

Wait - what's that? Not very upset about brutal rape?

Huh!

Stolen hookah - jesus christ. Get some perspective.

It is stolen. It’s not culturally an Israeli thing just like belly dancing and David music but you find hookah, Arab food, music and other random elements in Israel while they mock them. It’s weird. There was a viral Israeli wedding where they mocked Arabs dancing . Why do they even know their celebratory habits so well if they don’t like them and think they’re beneath them?

[Anonymous]

Dabke music