As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 00:05:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:A non-sequitur response. Taking sides is politically driven and ignores humanity, as you demonstrate every day in this group. Try again.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
Considering that both sides have been doing that, I’m not sure how you
can take sides without being accused of condoning such a thing.
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
Taking sides is politically driven and ignores humanity ...
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 01:32:45 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Yes it does. A neutral person can identify extremism and stupidity. I am politically neutral and people who are not (like you) hate that because they are incapable of relating to neutrality.
Taking sides is politically driven and ignores humanity ...
Given that you have accused me of being a “leftie”, that does not make you >exactly neutral, does it?
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 13:01:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>You really should read the article and not just cherry pick the comments.
wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
One of the comments below the post says:
"Ra Henare
Another example of the conflict between freedom of speech.
Ie an MP retweeting (not endorsing) speech from a 3rd person
and Ideological over reaction here, with calls for censorship and
banning."
and later:
"Ra Henare
Just a small point. This MP is NOT supporting a terrorist
group.!!!!!!!!
He is just retweeting.
I dont do X, so the context of the tweet would be interesting, as i
am sure the MP didnt just do this retweet as a random act."
and later again:
"Ghost
This is the video that the mp shared. You might not like it, you dont
have to, but he has every right to share it. Unless nz is no longer a
free country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ1btZhfE0U "
So here we have Kiwiblog posting something that does appear to be a
strongly held personal opinion - not particularly controversial from a >non-politician - it appears that supporters of both sides in the
current middle east conflict, both parties to that conflict have
rights to take the actions that they have done - you may not agree
with that statement, but are you really just attacking free speech? Do
you, Crash believe that Israel has met all the commitments that it
entered into regarding its relationships with all of its citizens and >surrounding countries since the state of Israel was established? Where
is this former Chief of Staff to the United States secretary of State
wrong? Is the objection that he is apparently a supporter of the
Republican Party?
The claim that Damien O'Connor endorses Hamas is clearly unsupported
by the clip that was posted - the "happily fomenting mischief" David
Farrar was seting up yet another ''controversial" post to feed his
rabid supporters, and attack a political opponent of ACT / National -
and yes the dogs slathered their spit and venom with glee - just
misplaced glee . . .
Just a typical far-right beat-up - but I am not blaming you Crash -
you have taken it at face value as Farrar intended . . .
... it appears that supporters of both sides in the current
middle east conflict, both parties to that conflict have rights to take
the actions that they have done ...
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 13:01:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
One of the comments below the post says:
"Ra Henare
Another example of the conflict between freedom of speech.
Ie an MP retweeting (not endorsing) speech from a 3rd person
and Ideological over reaction here, with calls for censorship and
banning."
and later:
"Ra Henare
Just a small point. This MP is NOT supporting a terrorist
group.!!!!!!!!
He is just retweeting.
I dont do X, so the context of the tweet would be interesting, as i
am sure the MP didnt just do this retweet as a random act."
and later again:
"Ghost
This is the video that the mp shared. You might not like it, you dont
have to, but he has every right to share it. Unless nz is no longer a
free country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ1btZhfE0U "
So here we have Kiwiblog posting something that does appear to be a
strongly held personal opinion - not particularly controversial from a >non-politician - it appears that supporters of both sides in the
current middle east conflict, both parties to that conflict have
rights to take the actions that they have done - you may not agree
with that statement, but are you really just attacking free speech? Do
you, Crash believe that Israel has met all the commitments that it
entered into regarding its relationships with all of its citizens and >surrounding countries since the state of Israel was established? Where
is this former Chief of Staff to the United States secretary of State
wrong? Is the objection that he is apparently a supporter of the
Republican Party?
The claim that Damien O'Connor endorses Hamas is clearly unsupported
by the clip that was posted - the "happily fomenting mischief" David
Farrar was seting up yet another ''controversial" post to feed his
rabid supporters, and attack a political opponent of ACT / National -
and yes the dogs slathered their spit and venom with glee - just
misplaced glee . . .
Just a typical far-right beat-up - but I am not blaming you Crash -
you have taken it at face value as Farrar intended . . .
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 15:43:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 13:01:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
One of the comments below the post says:
"Ra Henare
Another example of the conflict between freedom of speech.
Ie an MP retweeting (not endorsing) speech from a 3rd person
and Ideological over reaction here, with calls for censorship and
banning."
and later:
"Ra Henare
Just a small point. This MP is NOT supporting a terrorist
group.!!!!!!!!
He is just retweeting.
I dont do X, so the context of the tweet would be interesting, as i
am sure the MP didnt just do this retweet as a random act."
and later again:
"Ghost
This is the video that the mp shared. You might not like it, you dont
have to, but he has every right to share it. Unless nz is no longer a
free country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ1btZhfE0U "
So here we have Kiwiblog posting something that does appear to be a >>strongly held personal opinion - not particularly controversial from a >>non-politician - it appears that supporters of both sides in the
current middle east conflict, both parties to that conflict have
rights to take the actions that they have done - you may not agree
with that statement, but are you really just attacking free speech? Do
you, Crash believe that Israel has met all the commitments that it
entered into regarding its relationships with all of its citizens and >>surrounding countries since the state of Israel was established? Where
is this former Chief of Staff to the United States secretary of State >>wrong? Is the objection that he is apparently a supporter of the
Republican Party?
The claim that Damien O'Connor endorses Hamas is clearly unsupported
by the clip that was posted - the "happily fomenting mischief" David
Farrar was seting up yet another ''controversial" post to feed his
rabid supporters, and attack a political opponent of ACT / National -
and yes the dogs slathered their spit and venom with glee - just
misplaced glee . . .
Just a typical far-right beat-up - but I am not blaming you Crash -
you have taken it at face value as Farrar intended . . .
This post is not about what any of the Kiwiblog commenters said - it
is about what Damian O'Connor tweeted. I thought I made this clear
when I acknowledged I could not post a direct link to the post on X.
The basis of your post is therefore off-topic.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 00:05:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
Considering that both sides have been doing that, Im not sure how you
can take sides without being accused of condoning such a thing.
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 20:45:00 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 15:43:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 13:01:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
One of the comments below the post says:
"Ra Henare
Another example of the conflict between freedom of speech.
Ie an MP retweeting (not endorsing) speech from a 3rd person
and Ideological over reaction here, with calls for censorship and >>>banning."
and later:
"Ra Henare
Just a small point. This MP is NOT supporting a terrorist
group.!!!!!!!!
He is just retweeting.
I dont do X, so the context of the tweet would be interesting, as i
am sure the MP didnt just do this retweet as a random act."
and later again:
"Ghost
This is the video that the mp shared. You might not like it, you dont >>>have to, but he has every right to share it. Unless nz is no longer a >>>free country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ1btZhfE0U "
So here we have Kiwiblog posting something that does appear to be a >>>strongly held personal opinion - not particularly controversial from a >>>non-politician - it appears that supporters of both sides in the
current middle east conflict, both parties to that conflict have
rights to take the actions that they have done - you may not agree
with that statement, but are you really just attacking free speech? Do >>>you, Crash believe that Israel has met all the commitments that it >>>entered into regarding its relationships with all of its citizens and >>>surrounding countries since the state of Israel was established? Where
is this former Chief of Staff to the United States secretary of State >>>wrong? Is the objection that he is apparently a supporter of the >>>Republican Party?
The claim that Damien O'Connor endorses Hamas is clearly unsupported
by the clip that was posted - the "happily fomenting mischief" David >>>Farrar was seting up yet another ''controversial" post to feed his
rabid supporters, and attack a political opponent of ACT / National -
and yes the dogs slathered their spit and venom with glee - just >>>misplaced glee . . .
Just a typical far-right beat-up - but I am not blaming you Crash -
you have taken it at face value as Farrar intended . . .
This post is not about what any of the Kiwiblog commenters said - it
is about what Damian O'Connor tweeted. I thought I made this clear
when I acknowledged I could not post a direct link to the post on X.
The basis of your post is therefore off-topic.
O'Connor's post to twitter has apparently now been deleted, but it is
a fact that all he was posting was a bit of a rant from a Republican
former Chief of Staff - he was not endorsing the comments,
but the
video effectively pointed out that both sides of the current conflict
are claiming that they are entitled to do what they are doing. There
have been demonstrations in New Zealand in favour of both Israel and
Hamas - with both claiming that one side is justified and the other
wrong, and New Zealanders have participated in demonstrations on both
sides. That you were not able to find out more is unfortunate, but
context is important - Farrar was probably pleased to be able to
remove context, and to attack on the basis of misrepresentation.
I consider that both sides have acted very badly - and it is sad that
the United Nations appears powerless to intervene - due to the ability
of both the USA and Russia to veto any international efforts to stop
the killing.
That is all on-topic - Farrar's post was typically twisted in its >implications - and that is directly on topic as the post you referred
to was so biased.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 01:26:09 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'OliveiroA lot of people are saying that, Bill - particularly in the USA, whose government have consistently armed and trained the Israeli armed
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 00:05:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
Considering that both sides have been doing that, Im not sure how you
can take sides without being accused of condoning such a thing.
I'll take sides.
I'll take the side of Israel.
Israel did not start the current conflict.
It was started by a bunch of tribal religious savages who deliberately >attacked, murdered and took defenceless civillians as hostages. The >aggressors have as their stated intent the displacement and
extermination of all Jews. Israel is fighting for its survival.
The good news is that the Jews are too clever for the enemy and now
the enemy are getting their beans. That has been the fate of every
invader of Israel since 1948.
Israel should not let up until their enemies are obliterated.
Bill.
we could wonder whether the region could have had better result from
their equivalent of the treaty of Waitangi rather than the Declaration
of Balfour
Israel did not start the current conflict.
The aggressors have as their stated intent the displacement and
extermination of all Jews.
Israel should not let up until their enemies are obliterated.
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 22:26:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 20:45:00 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 15:43:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 13:01:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
One of the comments below the post says:
"Ra Henare
Another example of the conflict between freedom of speech.
Ie an MP retweeting (not endorsing) speech from a 3rd person
and Ideological over reaction here, with calls for censorship and >>>>banning."
and later:
"Ra Henare
Just a small point. This MP is NOT supporting a terrorist >>>>group.!!!!!!!!
He is just retweeting.
I dont do X, so the context of the tweet would be interesting, as i
am sure the MP didnt just do this retweet as a random act."
and later again:
"Ghost
This is the video that the mp shared. You might not like it, you dont >>>>have to, but he has every right to share it. Unless nz is no longer a >>>>free country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ1btZhfE0U "
So here we have Kiwiblog posting something that does appear to be a >>>>strongly held personal opinion - not particularly controversial from a >>>>non-politician - it appears that supporters of both sides in the >>>>current middle east conflict, both parties to that conflict have
rights to take the actions that they have done - you may not agree
with that statement, but are you really just attacking free speech? Do >>>>you, Crash believe that Israel has met all the commitments that it >>>>entered into regarding its relationships with all of its citizens and >>>>surrounding countries since the state of Israel was established? Where >>>>is this former Chief of Staff to the United States secretary of State >>>>wrong? Is the objection that he is apparently a supporter of the >>>>Republican Party?
The claim that Damien O'Connor endorses Hamas is clearly unsupported
by the clip that was posted - the "happily fomenting mischief" David >>>>Farrar was seting up yet another ''controversial" post to feed his >>>>rabid supporters, and attack a political opponent of ACT / National - >>>>and yes the dogs slathered their spit and venom with glee - just >>>>misplaced glee . . .
Just a typical far-right beat-up - but I am not blaming you Crash - >>>>you have taken it at face value as Farrar intended . . .
This post is not about what any of the Kiwiblog commenters said - it
is about what Damian O'Connor tweeted. I thought I made this clear
when I acknowledged I could not post a direct link to the post on X.
The basis of your post is therefore off-topic.
O'Connor's post to twitter has apparently now been deleted, but it is
a fact that all he was posting was a bit of a rant from a Republican >>former Chief of Staff - he was not endorsing the comments,
The very point of posting is surely to endorse what Kahlissee said.
Why else would O'Connor has re tweeted this stuff?
The wisdom of O'Connor deleting his tweet indicates to me that he has >belatedly acknowledged the lack of wisdom in tweeting it in the firstThat is possible; certainly I think he should have explained why it
place.
but the
video effectively pointed out that both sides of the current conflict
are claiming that they are entitled to do what they are doing. There
have been demonstrations in New Zealand in favour of both Israel and
Hamas - with both claiming that one side is justified and the other
wrong, and New Zealanders have participated in demonstrations on both >>sides. That you were not able to find out more is unfortunate, but
context is important - Farrar was probably pleased to be able to
remove context, and to attack on the basis of misrepresentation.
I consider that both sides have acted very badly - and it is sad that
the United Nations appears powerless to intervene - due to the ability
of both the USA and Russia to veto any international efforts to stop
the killing.
I totally agree. In times past the UN was permitted to offer neutral >military intervention with 'peacekeeping' forces. With that gone, it
is simply an impotent diplomatic venue.
That is all on-topic - Farrar's post was typically twisted in its >>implications - and that is directly on topic as the post you referred
to was so biased.
DPF original post is on-topic (because it does not change). Comments
made on the blogg are off-topic because it is pointless to comment on >commenters on another discussion forum.
On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 08:05:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 22:26:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 20:45:00 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 15:43:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 13:01:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
One of the comments below the post says:
"Ra Henare
Another example of the conflict between freedom of speech.
Ie an MP retweeting (not endorsing) speech from a 3rd person
and Ideological over reaction here, with calls for censorship and >>>>>banning."
and later:
"Ra Henare
Just a small point. This MP is NOT supporting a terrorist >>>>>group.!!!!!!!!
He is just retweeting.
I dont do X, so the context of the tweet would be interesting, as i >>>>>am sure the MP didnt just do this retweet as a random act."
and later again:
"Ghost
This is the video that the mp shared. You might not like it, you dont >>>>>have to, but he has every right to share it. Unless nz is no longer a >>>>>free country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ1btZhfE0U "
So here we have Kiwiblog posting something that does appear to be a >>>>>strongly held personal opinion - not particularly controversial from a >>>>>non-politician - it appears that supporters of both sides in the >>>>>current middle east conflict, both parties to that conflict have >>>>>rights to take the actions that they have done - you may not agree >>>>>with that statement, but are you really just attacking free speech? Do >>>>>you, Crash believe that Israel has met all the commitments that it >>>>>entered into regarding its relationships with all of its citizens and >>>>>surrounding countries since the state of Israel was established? Where >>>>>is this former Chief of Staff to the United States secretary of State >>>>>wrong? Is the objection that he is apparently a supporter of the >>>>>Republican Party?
The claim that Damien O'Connor endorses Hamas is clearly unsupported >>>>>by the clip that was posted - the "happily fomenting mischief" David >>>>>Farrar was seting up yet another ''controversial" post to feed his >>>>>rabid supporters, and attack a political opponent of ACT / National - >>>>>and yes the dogs slathered their spit and venom with glee - just >>>>>misplaced glee . . .
Just a typical far-right beat-up - but I am not blaming you Crash - >>>>>you have taken it at face value as Farrar intended . . .
This post is not about what any of the Kiwiblog commenters said - it
is about what Damian O'Connor tweeted. I thought I made this clear >>>>when I acknowledged I could not post a direct link to the post on X.
The basis of your post is therefore off-topic.
O'Connor's post to twitter has apparently now been deleted, but it is
a fact that all he was posting was a bit of a rant from a Republican >>>former Chief of Staff - he was not endorsing the comments,
The very point of posting is surely to endorse what Kahlissee said.
Why else would O'Connor has re tweeted this stuff?
The speaker was colonel Lawrence Wilkerson - who is Kahlissee?
That is possible; certainly I think he should have explained why it
The wisdom of O'Connor deleting his tweet indicates to me that he has >>belatedly acknowledged the lack of wisdom in tweeting it in the first >>place.
was posted in the first place. New Zealand has seen groups protesting
and seeking government intervention on behalf of all sides of the
conflict - and many MPs will have been spoken to on behalf of Jewish
families in relation to the appalling taking of hostages and the
deaths in the initial incident, but they may also have been spoken to
on behalf of what many see as a disproportionate response from Israel,
with a Prime Minister that it appears will not listen to the United
States or act rationally or within international laws in what is seen
as a disproportionate offensive that has killed adversaries and
uninvolved general population as well. An American Republican making
a statement that justifies anti-Israel actions is remarkable, but it
is also an opinion shared by many, and possible even a majority of New >Zealanders. It is good to know that we can get balanced views; it is >unfortunate that Farrar's post on Kiwiblog was so blatantly biased
against such moderate comments. We only saw part of the speech from >Wilkerson, but as is typical of Kiwiblog; the opening commentary was
deigned to ''let the dogs loose'' - or perhaps more appropriately to
''let the ferrets and weasels loose'' - it was taken as a partisan
attack. totally ignoring the emphasis that the far right nominally
place on free speech. The reality is that the far right use free
speech as an excuse to spout extreme views and represent them as
reasonable opinions, while feeling free to mis-represent and attack
others for moderate opinions that conflict with the dictatorial and >authoritarian decisions constantly issues by the government that they >support.
Sounds exactly like No Right Turn. In fact could be the same people.
but the
video effectively pointed out that both sides of the current conflict
are claiming that they are entitled to do what they are doing. There >>>have been demonstrations in New Zealand in favour of both Israel and >>>Hamas - with both claiming that one side is justified and the other >>>wrong, and New Zealanders have participated in demonstrations on both >>>sides. That you were not able to find out more is unfortunate, but >>>context is important - Farrar was probably pleased to be able to
remove context, and to attack on the basis of misrepresentation.
I consider that both sides have acted very badly - and it is sad that
the United Nations appears powerless to intervene - due to the ability
of both the USA and Russia to veto any international efforts to stop
the killing.
I totally agree. In times past the UN was permitted to offer neutral >>military intervention with 'peacekeeping' forces. With that gone, it
is simply an impotent diplomatic venue.
That is all on-topic - Farrar's post was typically twisted in its >>>implications - and that is directly on topic as the post you referred
to was so biased.
DPF original post is on-topic (because it does not change). Comments
made on the blogg are off-topic because it is pointless to comment on >>commenters on another discussion forum.
The whole point of Kiwiblog is to incite outrageous statements from
those that comment. Very few posts appear to ever be deleted - perhaps
unless they point out the extreme deliberate bias of the site. Most
blogs are happy for some discussion provided it is polite, on topic
and does not include deliberate lies and slurs about other posters.
Kiwiblog incites extremist far-right views deliberately. Comments are
the whole point of the blog, so yes they are as on-topic as Farrar's
feeder post.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:"No Right Turn" (found at https://norightturn.blogspot.com/ ) is a
On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 08:05:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Sounds exactly like No Right Turn. In fact could be the same people.
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 22:26:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 20:45:00 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 15:43:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 13:01:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
One of the comments below the post says:
"Ra Henare
Another example of the conflict between freedom of speech.
Ie an MP retweeting (not endorsing) speech from a 3rd person
and Ideological over reaction here, with calls for censorship and >>>>>>banning."
and later:
"Ra Henare
Just a small point. This MP is NOT supporting a terrorist >>>>>>group.!!!!!!!!
He is just retweeting.
I dont do X, so the context of the tweet would be interesting, as i >>>>>>am sure the MP didnt just do this retweet as a random act."
and later again:
"Ghost
This is the video that the mp shared. You might not like it, you dont >>>>>>have to, but he has every right to share it. Unless nz is no longer a >>>>>>free country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ1btZhfE0U "
So here we have Kiwiblog posting something that does appear to be a >>>>>>strongly held personal opinion - not particularly controversial from a >>>>>>non-politician - it appears that supporters of both sides in the >>>>>>current middle east conflict, both parties to that conflict have >>>>>>rights to take the actions that they have done - you may not agree >>>>>>with that statement, but are you really just attacking free speech? Do >>>>>>you, Crash believe that Israel has met all the commitments that it >>>>>>entered into regarding its relationships with all of its citizens and >>>>>>surrounding countries since the state of Israel was established? Where >>>>>>is this former Chief of Staff to the United States secretary of State >>>>>>wrong? Is the objection that he is apparently a supporter of the >>>>>>Republican Party?
The claim that Damien O'Connor endorses Hamas is clearly unsupported >>>>>>by the clip that was posted - the "happily fomenting mischief" David >>>>>>Farrar was seting up yet another ''controversial" post to feed his >>>>>>rabid supporters, and attack a political opponent of ACT / National - >>>>>>and yes the dogs slathered their spit and venom with glee - just >>>>>>misplaced glee . . .
Just a typical far-right beat-up - but I am not blaming you Crash - >>>>>>you have taken it at face value as Farrar intended . . .
This post is not about what any of the Kiwiblog commenters said - it >>>>>is about what Damian O'Connor tweeted. I thought I made this clear >>>>>when I acknowledged I could not post a direct link to the post on X.
The basis of your post is therefore off-topic.
O'Connor's post to twitter has apparently now been deleted, but it is
a fact that all he was posting was a bit of a rant from a Republican >>>>former Chief of Staff - he was not endorsing the comments,
The very point of posting is surely to endorse what Kahlissee said.
Why else would O'Connor has re tweeted this stuff?
The speaker was colonel Lawrence Wilkerson - who is Kahlissee?
That is possible; certainly I think he should have explained why it
The wisdom of O'Connor deleting his tweet indicates to me that he has >>>belatedly acknowledged the lack of wisdom in tweeting it in the first >>>place.
was posted in the first place. New Zealand has seen groups protesting
and seeking government intervention on behalf of all sides of the
conflict - and many MPs will have been spoken to on behalf of Jewish >>families in relation to the appalling taking of hostages and the
deaths in the initial incident, but they may also have been spoken to
on behalf of what many see as a disproportionate response from Israel,
with a Prime Minister that it appears will not listen to the United
States or act rationally or within international laws in what is seen
as a disproportionate offensive that has killed adversaries and
uninvolved general population as well. An American Republican making
a statement that justifies anti-Israel actions is remarkable, but it
is also an opinion shared by many, and possible even a majority of New >>Zealanders. It is good to know that we can get balanced views; it is >>unfortunate that Farrar's post on Kiwiblog was so blatantly biased
against such moderate comments. We only saw part of the speech from >>Wilkerson, but as is typical of Kiwiblog; the opening commentary was >>deigned to ''let the dogs loose'' - or perhaps more appropriately to
''let the ferrets and weasels loose'' - it was taken as a partisan
attack. totally ignoring the emphasis that the far right nominally
place on free speech. The reality is that the far right use free
speech as an excuse to spout extreme views and represent them as
reasonable opinions, while feeling free to mis-represent and attack
others for moderate opinions that conflict with the dictatorial and >>authoritarian decisions constantly issues by the government that they >>support.
but the
video effectively pointed out that both sides of the current conflict >>>>are claiming that they are entitled to do what they are doing. There >>>>have been demonstrations in New Zealand in favour of both Israel and >>>>Hamas - with both claiming that one side is justified and the other >>>>wrong, and New Zealanders have participated in demonstrations on both >>>>sides. That you were not able to find out more is unfortunate, but >>>>context is important - Farrar was probably pleased to be able to
remove context, and to attack on the basis of misrepresentation.
I consider that both sides have acted very badly - and it is sad that >>>>the United Nations appears powerless to intervene - due to the ability >>>>of both the USA and Russia to veto any international efforts to stop >>>>the killing.
I totally agree. In times past the UN was permitted to offer neutral >>>military intervention with 'peacekeeping' forces. With that gone, it
is simply an impotent diplomatic venue.
That is all on-topic - Farrar's post was typically twisted in its >>>>implications - and that is directly on topic as the post you referred >>>>to was so biased.
DPF original post is on-topic (because it does not change). Comments >>>made on the blogg are off-topic because it is pointless to comment on >>>commenters on another discussion forum.
The whole point of Kiwiblog is to incite outrageous statements from
those that comment. Very few posts appear to ever be deleted - perhaps >>unless they point out the extreme deliberate bias of the site. Most
blogs are happy for some discussion provided it is polite, on topic
and does not include deliberate lies and slurs about other posters. >>Kiwiblog incites extremist far-right views deliberately. Comments are
the whole point of the blog, so yes they are as on-topic as Farrar's
feeder post.
On Wed, 2 Oct 2024 03:17:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyAbuse removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:"No Right Turn" (found at https://norightturn.blogspot.com/ ) is a
On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 08:05:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Sounds exactly like No Right Turn. In fact could be the same people.
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 22:26:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 20:45:00 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 15:43:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 13:01:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
One of the comments below the post says:
"Ra Henare
Another example of the conflict between freedom of speech.
Ie an MP retweeting (not endorsing) speech from a 3rd person
and Ideological over reaction here, with calls for censorship and >>>>>>>banning."
and later:
"Ra Henare
Just a small point. This MP is NOT supporting a terrorist >>>>>>>group.!!!!!!!!
He is just retweeting.
I dont do X, so the context of the tweet would be interesting, as i >>>>>>>am sure the MP didnt just do this retweet as a random act."
and later again:
"Ghost
This is the video that the mp shared. You might not like it, you dont >>>>>>>have to, but he has every right to share it. Unless nz is no longer a >>>>>>>free country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ1btZhfE0U "
So here we have Kiwiblog posting something that does appear to be a >>>>>>>strongly held personal opinion - not particularly controversial from a >>>>>>>non-politician - it appears that supporters of both sides in the >>>>>>>current middle east conflict, both parties to that conflict have >>>>>>>rights to take the actions that they have done - you may not agree >>>>>>>with that statement, but are you really just attacking free speech? Do >>>>>>>you, Crash believe that Israel has met all the commitments that it >>>>>>>entered into regarding its relationships with all of its citizens and >>>>>>>surrounding countries since the state of Israel was established? Where >>>>>>>is this former Chief of Staff to the United States secretary of State >>>>>>>wrong? Is the objection that he is apparently a supporter of the >>>>>>>Republican Party?
The claim that Damien O'Connor endorses Hamas is clearly unsupported >>>>>>>by the clip that was posted - the "happily fomenting mischief" David >>>>>>>Farrar was seting up yet another ''controversial" post to feed his >>>>>>>rabid supporters, and attack a political opponent of ACT / National - >>>>>>>and yes the dogs slathered their spit and venom with glee - just >>>>>>>misplaced glee . . .
Just a typical far-right beat-up - but I am not blaming you Crash - >>>>>>>you have taken it at face value as Farrar intended . . .
This post is not about what any of the Kiwiblog commenters said - it >>>>>>is about what Damian O'Connor tweeted. I thought I made this clear >>>>>>when I acknowledged I could not post a direct link to the post on X. >>>>>>
The basis of your post is therefore off-topic.
O'Connor's post to twitter has apparently now been deleted, but it is >>>>>a fact that all he was posting was a bit of a rant from a Republican >>>>>former Chief of Staff - he was not endorsing the comments,
The very point of posting is surely to endorse what Kahlissee said.
Why else would O'Connor has re tweeted this stuff?
The speaker was colonel Lawrence Wilkerson - who is Kahlissee?
That is possible; certainly I think he should have explained why it
The wisdom of O'Connor deleting his tweet indicates to me that he has >>>>belatedly acknowledged the lack of wisdom in tweeting it in the first >>>>place.
was posted in the first place. New Zealand has seen groups protesting
and seeking government intervention on behalf of all sides of the >>>conflict - and many MPs will have been spoken to on behalf of Jewish >>>families in relation to the appalling taking of hostages and the
deaths in the initial incident, but they may also have been spoken to
on behalf of what many see as a disproportionate response from Israel, >>>with a Prime Minister that it appears will not listen to the United >>>States or act rationally or within international laws in what is seen
as a disproportionate offensive that has killed adversaries and >>>uninvolved general population as well. An American Republican making
a statement that justifies anti-Israel actions is remarkable, but it
is also an opinion shared by many, and possible even a majority of New >>>Zealanders. It is good to know that we can get balanced views; it is >>>unfortunate that Farrar's post on Kiwiblog was so blatantly biased >>>against such moderate comments. We only saw part of the speech from >>>Wilkerson, but as is typical of Kiwiblog; the opening commentary was >>>deigned to ''let the dogs loose'' - or perhaps more appropriately to >>>''let the ferrets and weasels loose'' - it was taken as a partisan >>>attack. totally ignoring the emphasis that the far right nominally
place on free speech. The reality is that the far right use free
speech as an excuse to spout extreme views and represent them as >>>reasonable opinions, while feeling free to mis-represent and attack >>>others for moderate opinions that conflict with the dictatorial and >>>authoritarian decisions constantly issues by the government that they >>>support.
but the
video effectively pointed out that both sides of the current conflict >>>>>are claiming that they are entitled to do what they are doing. There >>>>>have been demonstrations in New Zealand in favour of both Israel and >>>>>Hamas - with both claiming that one side is justified and the other >>>>>wrong, and New Zealanders have participated in demonstrations on both >>>>>sides. That you were not able to find out more is unfortunate, but >>>>>context is important - Farrar was probably pleased to be able to >>>>>remove context, and to attack on the basis of misrepresentation.
I consider that both sides have acted very badly - and it is sad that >>>>>the United Nations appears powerless to intervene - due to the ability >>>>>of both the USA and Russia to veto any international efforts to stop >>>>>the killing.
I totally agree. In times past the UN was permitted to offer neutral >>>>military intervention with 'peacekeeping' forces. With that gone, it >>>>is simply an impotent diplomatic venue.
That is all on-topic - Farrar's post was typically twisted in its >>>>>implications - and that is directly on topic as the post you referred >>>>>to was so biased.
DPF original post is on-topic (because it does not change). Comments >>>>made on the blogg are off-topic because it is pointless to comment on >>>>commenters on another discussion forum.
The whole point of Kiwiblog is to incite outrageous statements from
those that comment. Very few posts appear to ever be deleted - perhaps >>>unless they point out the extreme deliberate bias of the site. Most
blogs are happy for some discussion provided it is polite, on topic
and does not include deliberate lies and slurs about other posters. >>>Kiwiblog incites extremist far-right views deliberately. Comments are >>>the whole point of the blog, so yes they are as on-topic as Farrar's >>>feeder post.
blog which is written by a single person, who does not permit comments
on posts - nothing at all like Kiwiblog, where stirring up the nutters
is a big part of the purpose of the site. Yes both are political, but
I suspect there would be little common views between the two to be
found,
On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 08:05:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 22:26:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 20:45:00 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 15:43:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 13:01:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
One of the comments below the post says:
"Ra Henare
Another example of the conflict between freedom of speech.
Ie an MP retweeting (not endorsing) speech from a 3rd person
and Ideological over reaction here, with calls for censorship and >>>>>banning."
and later:
"Ra Henare
Just a small point. This MP is NOT supporting a terrorist >>>>>group.!!!!!!!!
He is just retweeting.
I dont do X, so the context of the tweet would be interesting, as i >>>>>am sure the MP didnt just do this retweet as a random act."
and later again:
"Ghost
This is the video that the mp shared. You might not like it, you dont >>>>>have to, but he has every right to share it. Unless nz is no longer a >>>>>free country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ1btZhfE0U "
So here we have Kiwiblog posting something that does appear to be a >>>>>strongly held personal opinion - not particularly controversial from a >>>>>non-politician - it appears that supporters of both sides in the >>>>>current middle east conflict, both parties to that conflict have >>>>>rights to take the actions that they have done - you may not agree >>>>>with that statement, but are you really just attacking free speech? Do >>>>>you, Crash believe that Israel has met all the commitments that it >>>>>entered into regarding its relationships with all of its citizens and >>>>>surrounding countries since the state of Israel was established? Where >>>>>is this former Chief of Staff to the United States secretary of State >>>>>wrong? Is the objection that he is apparently a supporter of the >>>>>Republican Party?
The claim that Damien O'Connor endorses Hamas is clearly unsupported >>>>>by the clip that was posted - the "happily fomenting mischief" David >>>>>Farrar was seting up yet another ''controversial" post to feed his >>>>>rabid supporters, and attack a political opponent of ACT / National - >>>>>and yes the dogs slathered their spit and venom with glee - just >>>>>misplaced glee . . .
Just a typical far-right beat-up - but I am not blaming you Crash - >>>>>you have taken it at face value as Farrar intended . . .
This post is not about what any of the Kiwiblog commenters said - it
is about what Damian O'Connor tweeted. I thought I made this clear >>>>when I acknowledged I could not post a direct link to the post on X.
The basis of your post is therefore off-topic.
O'Connor's post to twitter has apparently now been deleted, but it is
a fact that all he was posting was a bit of a rant from a Republican >>>former Chief of Staff - he was not endorsing the comments,
The very point of posting is surely to endorse what Kahlissee said.
Why else would O'Connor has re tweeted this stuff?
The speaker was colonel Lawrence Wilkerson - who is Kahlissee?
That is possible; certainly I think he should have explained why it
The wisdom of O'Connor deleting his tweet indicates to me that he has >>belatedly acknowledged the lack of wisdom in tweeting it in the first >>place.
was posted in the first place. New Zealand has seen groups protesting
and seeking government intervention on behalf of all sides of the
conflict - and many MPs will have been spoken to on behalf of Jewish
families in relation to the appalling taking of hostages and the
deaths in the initial incident, but they may also have been spoken to
on behalf of what many see as a disproportionate response from Israel,
with a Prime Minister that it appears will not listen to the United
States or act rationally or within international laws in what is seen
as a disproportionate offensive that has killed adversaries and
uninvolved general population as well. An American Republican making
a statement that justifies anti-Israel actions is remarkable, but it
is also an opinion shared by many, and possible even a majority of New >Zealanders. It is good to know that we can get balanced views; it is >unfortunate that Farrar's post on Kiwiblog was so blatantly biased
against such moderate comments. We only saw part of the speech from >Wilkerson, but as is typical of Kiwiblog; the opening commentary was
deigned to ''let the dogs loose'' - or perhaps more appropriately to
''let the ferrets and weasels loose'' - it was taken as a partisan
attack. totally ignoring the emphasis that the far right nominally
place on free speech. The reality is that the far right use free
speech as an excuse to spout extreme views and represent them as
reasonable opinions, while feeling free to mis-represent and attack
others for moderate opinions that conflict with the dictatorial and >authoritarian decisions constantly issues by the government that they >support.
but the
video effectively pointed out that both sides of the current conflict
are claiming that they are entitled to do what they are doing. There >>>have been demonstrations in New Zealand in favour of both Israel and >>>Hamas - with both claiming that one side is justified and the other >>>wrong, and New Zealanders have participated in demonstrations on both >>>sides. That you were not able to find out more is unfortunate, but >>>context is important - Farrar was probably pleased to be able to
remove context, and to attack on the basis of misrepresentation.
I consider that both sides have acted very badly - and it is sad that
the United Nations appears powerless to intervene - due to the ability
of both the USA and Russia to veto any international efforts to stop
the killing.
I totally agree. In times past the UN was permitted to offer neutral >>military intervention with 'peacekeeping' forces. With that gone, it
is simply an impotent diplomatic venue.
That is all on-topic - Farrar's post was typically twisted in its >>>implications - and that is directly on topic as the post you referred
to was so biased.
DPF original post is on-topic (because it does not change). Comments
made on the blogg are off-topic because it is pointless to comment on >>commenters on another discussion forum.
The whole point of Kiwiblog is to incite outrageous statements from
those that comment. Very few posts appear to ever be deleted - perhaps
unless they point out the extreme deliberate bias of the site. Most
blogs are happy for some discussion provided it is polite, on topic
and does not include deliberate lies and slurs about other posters.
Kiwiblog incites extremist far-right views deliberately. Comments are
the whole point of the blog, so yes they are as on-topic as Farrar's
feeder post.
On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 06:22:22 +1300, BR wrote:
Israel did not start the current conflict.
I notice you say current, as though current events can be divorced from
the entire history of the area since the imposition of the founding of
Israel on the Palestinians.
In other words, ignoring what Israel did in the past, it cant be held >responsible for those responding to its past aggression.
The aggressors have as their stated intent the displacement and
extermination of all Jews.
And Israel wants to exterminate them, too.
Clearly this cannot lead to a
happy situation; some compromise is necessary.
Israel should not let up until their enemies are obliterated.
Pro world-leader tip: trying to intimidate your neighbours into submission
is not a recipe for regional peace or stability.
On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 16:02:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>And there I believe you are wrong - Wilkerson was in my view saying
wrote:
On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 08:05:30 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 22:26:32 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 20:45:00 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 15:43:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2024 13:01:07 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
As I am not on X I could not link direct to the post.
One of the comments below the post says:
"Ra Henare
Another example of the conflict between freedom of speech.
Ie an MP retweeting (not endorsing) speech from a 3rd person
and Ideological over reaction here, with calls for censorship and >>>>>>banning."
and later:
"Ra Henare
Just a small point. This MP is NOT supporting a terrorist >>>>>>group.!!!!!!!!
He is just retweeting.
I dont do X, so the context of the tweet would be interesting, as i >>>>>>am sure the MP didnt just do this retweet as a random act."
and later again:
"Ghost
This is the video that the mp shared. You might not like it, you dont >>>>>>have to, but he has every right to share it. Unless nz is no longer a >>>>>>free country
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ1btZhfE0U "
So here we have Kiwiblog posting something that does appear to be a >>>>>>strongly held personal opinion - not particularly controversial from a >>>>>>non-politician - it appears that supporters of both sides in the >>>>>>current middle east conflict, both parties to that conflict have >>>>>>rights to take the actions that they have done - you may not agree >>>>>>with that statement, but are you really just attacking free speech? Do >>>>>>you, Crash believe that Israel has met all the commitments that it >>>>>>entered into regarding its relationships with all of its citizens and >>>>>>surrounding countries since the state of Israel was established? Where >>>>>>is this former Chief of Staff to the United States secretary of State >>>>>>wrong? Is the objection that he is apparently a supporter of the >>>>>>Republican Party?
The claim that Damien O'Connor endorses Hamas is clearly unsupported >>>>>>by the clip that was posted - the "happily fomenting mischief" David >>>>>>Farrar was seting up yet another ''controversial" post to feed his >>>>>>rabid supporters, and attack a political opponent of ACT / National - >>>>>>and yes the dogs slathered their spit and venom with glee - just >>>>>>misplaced glee . . .
Just a typical far-right beat-up - but I am not blaming you Crash - >>>>>>you have taken it at face value as Farrar intended . . .
This post is not about what any of the Kiwiblog commenters said - it >>>>>is about what Damian O'Connor tweeted. I thought I made this clear >>>>>when I acknowledged I could not post a direct link to the post on X.
The basis of your post is therefore off-topic.
O'Connor's post to twitter has apparently now been deleted, but it is
a fact that all he was posting was a bit of a rant from a Republican >>>>former Chief of Staff - he was not endorsing the comments,
The very point of posting is surely to endorse what Kahlissee said.
Why else would O'Connor has re tweeted this stuff?
The speaker was colonel Lawrence Wilkerson - who is Kahlissee?
Have a look at the cite in my OP. It does not matter too much who
said it - it matters that O'Connor retweeted it. That is endorsement
and that is the only point I was making.
I do not believe he was endorsing anything other than concern thatYou have wandered off on an irrelevant tangent. The point of my postThat is possible; certainly I think he should have explained why it
The wisdom of O'Connor deleting his tweet indicates to me that he has >>>belatedly acknowledged the lack of wisdom in tweeting it in the first >>>place.
was posted in the first place. New Zealand has seen groups protesting
and seeking government intervention on behalf of all sides of the
conflict - and many MPs will have been spoken to on behalf of Jewish >>families in relation to the appalling taking of hostages and the
deaths in the initial incident, but they may also have been spoken to
on behalf of what many see as a disproportionate response from Israel,
with a Prime Minister that it appears will not listen to the United
States or act rationally or within international laws in what is seen
as a disproportionate offensive that has killed adversaries and
uninvolved general population as well. An American Republican making
a statement that justifies anti-Israel actions is remarkable, but it
is also an opinion shared by many, and possible even a majority of New >>Zealanders. It is good to know that we can get balanced views; it is >>unfortunate that Farrar's post on Kiwiblog was so blatantly biased
against such moderate comments. We only saw part of the speech from >>Wilkerson, but as is typical of Kiwiblog; the opening commentary was >>deigned to ''let the dogs loose'' - or perhaps more appropriately to
''let the ferrets and weasels loose'' - it was taken as a partisan
attack. totally ignoring the emphasis that the far right nominally
place on free speech. The reality is that the far right use free
speech as an excuse to spout extreme views and represent them as
reasonable opinions, while feeling free to mis-represent and attack
others for moderate opinions that conflict with the dictatorial and >>authoritarian decisions constantly issues by the government that they >>support.
was what O'Connor is endorsing.
And I believe you are wrong in that interpretation.
but the
video effectively pointed out that both sides of the current conflict >>>>are claiming that they are entitled to do what they are doing. There >>>>have been demonstrations in New Zealand in favour of both Israel and >>>>Hamas - with both claiming that one side is justified and the other >>>>wrong, and New Zealanders have participated in demonstrations on both >>>>sides. That you were not able to find out more is unfortunate, but >>>>context is important - Farrar was probably pleased to be able to
remove context, and to attack on the basis of misrepresentation.
I consider that both sides have acted very badly - and it is sad that >>>>the United Nations appears powerless to intervene - due to the ability >>>>of both the USA and Russia to veto any international efforts to stop >>>>the killing.
I totally agree. In times past the UN was permitted to offer neutral >>>military intervention with 'peacekeeping' forces. With that gone, it
is simply an impotent diplomatic venue.
That is all on-topic - Farrar's post was typically twisted in its >>>>implications - and that is directly on topic as the post you referred >>>>to was so biased.
DPF original post is on-topic (because it does not change). Comments >>>made on the blogg are off-topic because it is pointless to comment on >>>commenters on another discussion forum.
The whole point of Kiwiblog is to incite outrageous statements from
those that comment. Very few posts appear to ever be deleted - perhaps >>unless they point out the extreme deliberate bias of the site. Most
blogs are happy for some discussion provided it is polite, on topic
and does not include deliberate lies and slurs about other posters. >>Kiwiblog incites extremist far-right views deliberately. Comments are
the whole point of the blog, so yes they are as on-topic as Farrar's
feeder post.
Who cares what you think of DPF and Kiwiblog? I was talking about
O'Connor's actions in endorsing Hamas.
So do you believe that they are justified in their attack on defenceless civillians?
You don't negotiate with people who have said that they intend to
kill you and have proved that intent.
And Israel wants to exterminate them, too.
That is an assumption on your part.
...
You obliterate them.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 22:27:13 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'OliveiroI do not believe that either Hamas or Israel are justified in their
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Oct 2024 06:22:22 +1300, BR wrote:
Israel did not start the current conflict.
I notice you say current, as though current events can be divorced from >>the entire history of the area since the imposition of the founding of >>Israel on the Palestinians.
OK, so you are an apologist for the sort of behaviour that took place
on October the 7th.
In other words, ignoring what Israel did in the past, it cant be held >>responsible for those responding to its past aggression.
So do you believe that they are justified in their attack on
defenceless civillians?
The aggressors in a war are both sides, with Israel arguably killingThe aggressors have as their stated intent the displacement and
extermination of all Jews.
There have been plenty of arguments that Israel is in a war that it
And Israel wants to exterminate them, too.
That is an assumption on your part.
Clearly this cannot lead to a
happy situation; some compromise is necessary.
You call it compromise ,I call it appeasement. You don't negotiate
with people who have said that they intend to kill you and have proved
that intent. You obliterate them. Israel has shown remarkable
restraint up until October the 7th. After the holocaust when they
vowed "never again!", they weren't kidding, Now they have finally run
out of patience, and not before time.
Israel should not let up until their enemies are obliterated.
Pro world-leader tip: trying to intimidate your neighbours into submission >>is not a recipe for regional peace or stability.
Would that have been viable policy during WWII?
Israel is in a war that it did not start. In war, there is only one
thing that matters; WINNING! Israel's enemies have as their intent the >destruction of Israel and the exterminations of the Jews. They are no >different to the Nazis; their objectives are exactly the same, but
this time the Jews are not rolling over and taking it. Israel should
settle for nothing less than either the complete annihilation of the >terrorists or their unconditional surrender.
Bill.
Wilkerson was in my view saying
that our international laws are allowing the sort of atrocities that
we are seeing from both sides in this war.
On Sat, 05 Oct 2024 06:51:18 +1300, BR wrote:
So do you believe that they are justified in their attack on defenceless
civillians?
You tell me: do you answer yes for one side but no for the other? Or
does the same law have to apply to both sides?
That is the crux of the matter.
You don't negotiate with people who have said that they intend to
kill you and have proved that intent.
Again: does that apply equally to both sides, or just to the side you
favour?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
-- Mohandas K Gandhi
And Israel wants to exterminate them, too.
That is an assumption on your part.
...
You obliterate them.
I rest my case.
Israel does not target exclusively civillian targets. Where is
the military advantage in that?
In any war there are always civilian deaths and injuries, that cannot be helped.
The terrorists hide behind the women and children of Gaza ...
The terrorists don't care about public opinion because most of the media
give them a pass, and unfortunately there are enough people who still
take the media seriously.
You got a problem with obliterating terrorists?
On Wed, 09 Oct 2024 04:55:18 +1300, BR wrote:
Israel does not target exclusively civillian targets. Where is
the military advantage in that?
Where indeed? Israel doesnt seem to have had any military strategy in
Gaza at all. Butcher Bibis claimed aim of destroying Hamas is
absolutely laughable, as admitted by his own military spokesman, Admiral >Hagari.
Their main aim seems to make life for everyone in Gaza a living hell, so
they can boot them all out and replace them with Jewish settlers. They >already held a conference to discuss plans for exactly that.
In any war there are always civilian deaths and injuries, that cannot be
helped.
More journalists have been killed in Gaza in the past year than in the
whole of World War II.
Theres a bit more than cannot be helped going on there.
The terrorists hide behind the women and children of Gaza ...
Israel keeps saying that, but they never seem to provide evidence of that. >Has any independent authority ever been presented with evidence of that?
OK, Ill make it easier: has the USA, Israels closest ally (and not
exactly an independent authority on this matter), ever said that their >intelligence backed up Israels human shields excuse?
The terrorists don't care about public opinion because most of the media
give them a pass, and unfortunately there are enough people who still
take the media seriously.
Where do you get your info from, then?
You got a problem with obliterating terrorists?
Both sides are guilty of acts of terrorism, going back right to the >foundation of Israel and before. So favouring obliterating one side over >the other, on that basis, seems a bit ... whats the word ... extremist,
I think its usually called.
For that reason, when we remember the 1,200 Israelis who lost their
lives at the hands of Hamas a year ago ...
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:08:57 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:Wow you are so desparate. I don't favour either side of this terrible situation but when people like you tell massive lies to continue a pointless and unwinnable argument then it becomes clear that you have no case to prosecute.
For that reason, when we remember the 1,200 Israelis who lost their
lives at the hands of Hamas a year ago ...
Quite a few of them killed, not by Hamas, but by Israel.
Basically the IDF was firing at every vehicle heading back to the Gaza >border, whether there were hostages in it or not.
There is evidence of the “Hannibal Directive” being in effect: kill your >own side’s people who have been captured, so the enemy cannot use them as >bargaining chips.
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:08:57 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:and as the quote continues:
For that reason, when we remember the 1,200 Israelis who lost their
lives at the hands of Hamas a year ago ...
Quite a few of them killed, not by Hamas, but by Israel.
Basically the IDF was firing at every vehicle heading back to the Gaza >border, whether there were hostages in it or not.
There is evidence of the Hannibal Directive being in effect: kill your
own sides people who have been captured, so the enemy cannot use them as >bargaining chips.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 01:59:47 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:No more so than the bias shown by your favourite blogs - totally linked to the left wing parties.
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:08:57 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:and as the quote continues:
For that reason, when we remember the 1,200 Israelis who lost their
lives at the hands of Hamas a year ago ...
Quite a few of them killed, not by Hamas, but by Israel.
Basically the IDF was firing at every vehicle heading back to the Gaza >>border, whether there were hostages in it or not.
There is evidence of the Hannibal Directive being in effect: kill your >>own sides people who have been captured, so the enemy cannot use them as >>bargaining chips.
"..... at the hands of Hamas a year ago, it is just as important to
remember the 41,000 Palestinians who have died subsequently at the
hands of the Israeli Defence Forces. The same vastly unequal toll of
death and suffering is now being inflicted by the IDF operations
inside Lebanon. Reportedly, nine invading IDF troops have been killed
in southern Lebanon during the last fortnight, while over 2000
Lebanese have died. . . .
The Israelis will argue that many of those deaths were caused by Hamas
. . . and many around the world will also blame those that been
supplying the weapons, and see those that have used a veto at the
United Nations to be also culpable for the continuing deaths.
This thread started with a reference to: >https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
the discussion since has I think confirmed that Kiwiblog is morally
bankrupt - they will do anything to attack politicians that are not
linked to ACT, National or NZ First.
and as the quote continues:
"..... at the hands of Hamas a year ago..."
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 01:59:47 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:No more so than the bias shown by your favourite blogs - totally linked to the >left wing parties.
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:08:57 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:and as the quote continues:
For that reason, when we remember the 1,200 Israelis who lost their
lives at the hands of Hamas a year ago ...
Quite a few of them killed, not by Hamas, but by Israel.
Basically the IDF was firing at every vehicle heading back to the Gaza >>>border, whether there were hostages in it or not.
There is evidence of the Hannibal Directive being in effect: kill your >>>own sides people who have been captured, so the enemy cannot use them as >>>bargaining chips.
"..... at the hands of Hamas a year ago, it is just as important to >>remember the 41,000 Palestinians who have died subsequently at the
hands of the Israeli Defence Forces. The same vastly unequal toll of
death and suffering is now being inflicted by the IDF operations
inside Lebanon. Reportedly, nine invading IDF troops have been killed
in southern Lebanon during the last fortnight, while over 2000
Lebanese have died. . . .
The Israelis will argue that many of those deaths were caused by Hamas
. . . and many around the world will also blame those that been
supplying the weapons, and see those that have used a veto at the
United Nations to be also culpable for the continuing deaths.
This thread started with a reference to: >>https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
the discussion since has I think confirmed that Kiwiblog is morally >>bankrupt - they will do anything to attack politicians that are not
linked to ACT, National or NZ First.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 05:38:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt was true then and is moreso now.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 01:59:47 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:No more so than the bias shown by your favourite blogs - totally linked to >>the
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:08:57 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:and as the quote continues:
For that reason, when we remember the 1,200 Israelis who lost their
lives at the hands of Hamas a year ago ...
Quite a few of them killed, not by Hamas, but by Israel.
Basically the IDF was firing at every vehicle heading back to the Gaza >>>>border, whether there were hostages in it or not.
There is evidence of the Hannibal Directive being in effect: kill your >>>>own sides people who have been captured, so the enemy cannot use them as >>>>bargaining chips.
"..... at the hands of Hamas a year ago, it is just as important to >>>remember the 41,000 Palestinians who have died subsequently at the
hands of the Israeli Defence Forces. The same vastly unequal toll of >>>death and suffering is now being inflicted by the IDF operations
inside Lebanon. Reportedly, nine invading IDF troops have been killed
in southern Lebanon during the last fortnight, while over 2000
Lebanese have died. . . .
The Israelis will argue that many of those deaths were caused by Hamas
. . . and many around the world will also blame those that been >>>supplying the weapons, and see those that have used a veto at the
United Nations to be also culpable for the continuing deaths.
This thread started with a reference to: >>>https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2024/09/labour_mp_endorses_murder_rape_torture_and_kidnapping.html
the discussion since has I think confirmed that Kiwiblog is morally >>>bankrupt - they will do anything to attack politicians that are not >>>linked to ACT, National or NZ First.
left wing parties.
As you said Tony in the second post in this thread:
"Amazing. Another fool that cannot see that there are two sides to the >barbarism that is going on. And to make political currency from it is
in itself barbaric."
The remarkable video that O'Connor posted showed a senior adviser inI support nothing of the kind you moron.
the USA pointing out that Hamas had as much legal justification for
its actions as Israel - but you support the political spin of Farrar
and Kiwiblog in interpreting that as an endorsement of Hamas. Your
hypocrisy just keeps on coming through, Tony . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:21:01 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,974 |